Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 17th December, 1959, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Paper Trade, Scotland (Capital Investment)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of the capital investment in the Scottish paper trade in the last year and for the coming year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the Minister any direct or indirect evidence from the trade itself whether it regards the new Outer Seven trade agreement pessimistically or not, because my information is that it feels disinclined to invest any further money in the industry?

Mr. Rodgers: It is true that some Scottish paper and board makers have

said that the threat of Scandinavian competition in the European Free Trade Association will oblige them to cut back their investment programmes. On the other hand, however, there are reports that makers of esparto and other special papers are still expending large sums on modernisation and rationalisation; and Wiggins Teape and three other United Kingdom paper makers are investigating the possibility of a new woodpulp mill near Fort William.

Children's Film Foundation Limited

Mr. Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of grant given each year to the Children's Film Foundation.

Mr. J. Rodgers: No grant is made to the Children's Film Foundation Limited from public funds. Under the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, the British Film Fund Agency, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may make payments to the Children's Film Foundation Limited out of moneys realised from the levy imposed on cinema exhibitors for the benefit of British film production. In each of the last three years proposals for payments to the Children's Film Foundation Limited of sums amounting to £125,000 have been approved.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the Minister think it right that when a community association applies for a grant for a particular film to be shown it should be told that that film cannot be shown unless the


agreement has been obtained of all the cinema exhibitors within a radius of three miles? Have the children to have only second-class films because the film exhibitors do not wish them to see the better-class films?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the difficulty with regard to West Bromwich Community Centre, but the Foundation must operate commercially like any other part of the film industry. The booking manager tries to be as helpful as possible in suggesting alternative titles to films which are not available.

Mr. Dugdale: They are not available because the industry does not allow them to be shown.

Cotton Yarn (Prices)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that cotton yarn prices have increased over the past three months by over 1s. a pound, or about 15 per cent., whilst raw cotton prices are lower today than they were a year ago; and, since the £60,000,000 recently voted by Parliament for the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry was to increase efficiency and to reduce prices, if he will have the recent price increases investigated and make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I have looked into the increase to which my hon. Friend refers. Average United Kingdom prices of cotton yarn have increased by 8 per cent. since September, 1959, and 5 per cent. since December, 1958. Over the same periods, prices of raw cotton have increased by 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively. I do not propose therefore to take any action. I would add that, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained on 3rd December, the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the reorganisation and re-equipment of the cotton industry is £30 million, and not £60 million as stated in the Question.

Mr. Osborne: Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the correction in the total figure, may I ask him whether, despite that, he does not think that the public is entitled to lower prices as a result of this huge subsidy given to the Lancashire cotton industry?

Mr. Rodgers: The subsidy is for the reorganisation of the cotton industry, and I would point out that yarn prices are lower now than they were two years ago.

Mr. Hale: Would the Minister remember that there is an outstanding wage claim by the persons employed in the Lancashire cotton industry, who are now recognised to have been some of the worst-paid of our skilled workers throughout industry, and that if these additional prices did provide some possibility of meeting this claim in full many of us on this side of the House would welcome it?

Mr. Jay: Has the Parliamentary Secretary no anxieties about the working of the Cotton Act? Has he carried out the promises he gave us before Christmas to inquire into the allegation that some firms are using the money obtained for scrapping machinery to start up again in the business?

Mr. Rodgers: That is another question.

Resale Price Maintenance

Mr. Jay: the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need for lower retail prices, the Government will repeal Section 25 of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, which enables manufacturers to enforce their prices on retailers.

Mr. Ledger: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider repealing that part of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, which enables manufacturers of proprietary goods to enforce price maintenance through the courts.

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to reduce prices, if he will introduce an amending Bill on the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, that will allow a manufacturer to sue a retailer only if he sells above the recommended retail price; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is studying the working of this part of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, in order to decide whether any changes should be recommended to


Parliament, but it will be some time before he will be able to make a statement.

Mr. Jay: Can we know how soon we shall have the statement? Is it not rather odd that the Chancellor should be asking traders to reduce their prices at the same time as the Government's own legislation is preventing them from doing so?

Mr. Rodgers: The extent to which the enforcement of resale price maintenance conditions by manufacturers is likely to hinder response to the appeal for lower prices can very easily be exaggerated. The goods on which resale price maintenance is in force appear to be well under 50 per cent. of the total retail market. Very few foodstuffs are now price maintained at all.

Mr. Ledger: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that under the threat of court action many retailers are forced to take a 80 to 100 per cent. profit margin when they would be content with something rather more modest?

Mr. Rodgers: That is a question about retail prices rather than resale price maintenance.

Mr. Osborne: While the country will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for promising to look into this particular part of the Act, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend to have the whole Act reviewed in view of the experience of the last three years?

Mr. Rodgers: We think that the period is still very short, but naturally we keep it continually under review.

Productivity

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade the increase in productivity per hour of British workers since 1954.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I regret that estimates covering all workers are not available. In the manufacturing, building, mining and public utility groups of industries output per man hour is estimated to have risen by 10 per cent. or slightly more between 1954 and 1959. The rate of increase in other occupations is generally less than in these industries.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not the case that most of the increase has taken place in the last year? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Western Germany during the same period the increase in productivity has been two and a half times as great, as a result of the vastly increased investment in capital goods, machinery and equipment which the Government here have been deliberately restricting? Does not this shake the Government's complacency about the state of British industry? Is it not time that the Government stopped saying, "We have never had it so good", and did something about equipping our industry decently so that British workers' productivity could rise faster?

Mr. Rodgers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no such complacency on the Government Front Bench. The international comparisons to which the hon. Gentleman referred are difficult to interpret, but there was probably more scope among the other European countries for raising productivity by large capital investment and in other ways than in the United Kingdom or in the United States.

Restrictive Practices Court (Trade Agreements)

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many trade agreements have been lodged with the Restrictive Practices Court; and how many of them have been approved.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Since the opening of the Register, 2,240 agreements have been registered. Of these, 770 have been abandoned and 1,470 still remain in operation, and of these, nine have so far been examined by the Restrictive Practices Court. One complete agreement and certain particulars of another have been found to operate in the public interest. Orders declaring restrictions to be contrary to the public interest have been made, with the consent of the parties, in 34 other cases.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not clear from those miserable statistics that it will take about a hundred years to dispose fully of those price maintenance agreements? Most of them are illegal anyway. When will the Government get a move on with this?

Mr. Rodgers: The figures I have quoted show that Part I of the 1956 Act is operating efficiently. Action has been started by the Registrar to bring a further 120 cases before the court.

Price-Fixing Agreements

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to abolish price-fixing agreements.

Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. Effective machinery for bringing to an end undesirable price fixing agreements is already provided in Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not clear that the arrangements in Part I of the Act are quite inadequate to deal with the problem in its present magnitude? Is it not clear, further, that all these trade agreements and resale price maintenance arrangements are sabotaging the Chancellor of the Exchequer's somewhat ineffectual appeal to bring down prices? When will the consumer get the benefit of increased productivity?

Mr. Rodgers: There is no reason so far to assume that all agreements on price are necessarily against the public interest.

Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the request from the Cardiff City Council that, in view of the number of unemployed persons in the city and the area surrounding it, Cardiff should be designated a special area under the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. J. Rodgers: In my reply to the Cardiff City Council, I said that we would bear their representations in mind when the time came to draw up the list of places to be assisted under the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: When is that likely to be? Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the uncertainty in places like Cardiff? Does he know that the Cardiff Development Committee estimates that there are over 8,000 men and women unemployed within the natural catchment area for Cardiff, and does he realise that the uncertainty of the present position is causing grave repercussions?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the unemployment figures for Cardiff and the surrounding area. As my right hon. Friend announced, the new list will be made available as soon as the Act is passed.

Mr. Callaghan: Will Cardiff be in it?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the publication of the list.

Films (Television Broadcasts)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the purchase by television contractors of film companies for the purpose of acquiring films for exhibition on television, he will bring forward legislation to impose upon television authorities similar obligations to those imposed upon cinematograph exhibitors by the Cinematograph Films Acts.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I do not see that the extension of the obligations under the Cinematograph Films Acts would be appropriate.

Mr. Swingler: As it is obvious that an increasing number of films will now be shown on television, which is probably in the interests of viewers, is it not wholly unfair to cinematograph exhibitors that television companies should have no obligation to show a quota of British films or to assist British film production in any way financially, whilst those obligations remain on the cinematograph exhibitors in the state of the decline of the trade?

Mr. Rodgers: Section 3 (1, d) of the Television Act already places upon the Independent Television Authority the duty of satisfying itself that so far as possible a proper proportion of recorded and other matter included in the programmes is of British origin and with British performers. The B.B.C. makes similar arrangements.

Mr. Swingler: That is not specific. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that a quite specific obligation is placed upon cinematograph exhibitors to show a certain quota of British films and a levy is imposed upon them statutorily to assist film production. The same thing should be applied to television companies.

Mr. Rodgers: Detailed questions about the operation of the Television Act are matters for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and not for me.

Dundee (Diversification of Industry)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to speed up the diversification of industry in the Dundee area in the light of his decision to reduce the mark-up on imported jute goods.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has factories now under construction in Dundee which are expected to provide Over 1,000 jobs. In addition, financial assistance is available for suitable projects. We will continue in our efforts to encourage new industrial development in the area.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that Answer is not in the least satisfactory in relation to the problem? Is he aware, further, that the Government's efforts since the original reduction in the mark-up of jute have not matched the number of jobs lost then and that this latest mark-up is likely to reduce the number of jobs in Dundee in the coming year by a further 1,000? What specific efforts does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to make to give Dundee a share, for instance, in any expansion in the motor industry north of the Border?

Mr. Rodgers: We draw the attention of industries to the great need of Dundee for diversification.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some assurance that he will not push the reduction of the jute industry in Dundee further and further? On his own admission, he has exactly undone now all the work on creating new jobs in Dundee which he has done over the past year.

Mr. Rodgers: The jute industry is a slightly different question, but the trade has estimated that the reduction in the mark-up to which reference was made may effect 800 to 1,000 people. Projects under construction are expected to provide 1,000 jobs in 1960 and 700 there-after, and projects approved but not yet started in the district are estimated to provide a further 1,344 jobs.

Jute Industry

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement of the Government's future policy for the United Kingdom jute industry in the light of his decision further to reduce the mark-up on imported jute goods.

Mr. J. Rodgers: This decision involves no change in the policy of maintaining State trading in the interests of employment in Dundee.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that this decision, as we prophesied during the General Election campaign, is a breach of the undertakings given by his own Government to the United Kingdom jute industry, on the basis of which investors have invested £10 million during the last few years? Will he bear this very much in mind in ensuring justice for the United Kingdom jute industry in any consideration of its future?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the reduction of 10 per cent. in the mark-up is the last that this Government will make in the life of this Parliament? What the industry wants is an assurance for the future.

Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I cannot give such an assurance.

Mr. Strachey: Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give that assurance? His failure to give such an assurance is a warning to the industry that it will be slowly strangled.

European Trade

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in negotiations between member countries of the organisation known as the Seven and the European Economic Community for the co-ordination of tariff policies.

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made towards bringing about a closer association between the six Common Market countries and the Outer Seven countries and in lessening the danger of a division of Europe into two competing economic blocs.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I have been asked to reply.
It was agreed at a series of meetings in Paris on 12th to 15th January that the twenty Governments who are members of, or associated with, the O.E.E.C., together with the Commission of the European Economic Community, should arrange for the consideration of certain problems of commercial policy of particular concern to these Governments. This would include the examination, as a matter of priority, of the relationship between the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association, with due regard to the commercial interests of third countries and the principles and obligations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Holt: Is the Chancellor aware of the growing concern due to the failure of the Government to avoid the split which has taken place in Europe particularly on behalf of industry and, as we learned the other night, on behalf of people in agriculture? Is it not time for a complete reappraisal of Government policy, to recognise the realities in Europe and to seek now entry into the European Economic Community?

Mr. Amory: I certainly could not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the fact that the Six and the Seven have not yet reached any form of association is due to negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that any Government could have shown themselves keener or could have bean more energetic in the steps they have taken to try to bring about such an association.

Mr. Wade: Is it correct, as stated in the Press, that after the talks in Paris the British Government finally abandoned the attempt to obtain a Free Trade Area in Western Europe? If that is so, is there not an increasing danger that the division between the Six and the Seven will harden? Does the Chancellor agree that time is not on our side?

Mr. Amory: It is certainly not the case that the United Kingdom Government have abandoned the hope or intention of doing everything they possibly can to bring about a wider multilateral association, including all members of Western Europe.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not quite clear that both the Six and the United States are firmly opposed to any special arrangements between the Six and the Seven involving discrimination? Would it not be as well if the Government now recognised this and also that, whether we like it or not, if there is to be an arrangement it has to be very near to a Customs union?

Mr. Amory: All these points will be raised in discussion, and we must see what the results of the meetings of the twenty Governments are. The terms of reference for their discussions are very wide and will include all these difficult points.

Peterlee (New Industries)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what additional industries are contemplated in the new town of Peterlee.

Mr. J. Rodgers: A new factory under construction at Peterlee should provide some 140 additional jobs, rising to 350. Other developments within travel-to-work distance are expected to provide some 3,000 more jobs.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that Answer that work is to be provided for 3,000 people, but not in Peterlee? Is that what he said? Is he aware that I have been receiving these Answers for the past five or six years and I am becoming a little tired of them? Is he aware also that, while other areas are quite deservedly being injected with some new industries, very little is being done for the County of Durham? When will the Government wake up to the needs of the County of Durham?

Mr. Rodgers: We are very much aware of the needs of Peterlee and if there were applications for I.D.C.s we would freely grant them. Further, we bring to the notice of industrialists on the move the needs of Peterlee, but we cannot go very much further than that.

Household Domestic Appliances (Hire-Purchase Agreements)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the distress caused to innocent people by the exploitation of house-


wives in South Wales by some representatives dealing in the sale on hire-purchase terms of household domestic appliances; whether he will introduce legislation requiring representatives engaged in such sales to be in possession of a Board of Trade licence; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Hire Purchase Acts of 1938 and 1954 are designed to protect those entering into hire-purchase agreements of the type which, I believe, the hon. Member has in mind. I am not aware of any special problem in South Wales. If the hon. Member has in mind practices which are not covered by existing legislation, he will, no doubt, consider submitting evidence to the Committee on Consumer Protection.

London and South-East Region (Factory Space)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of total new factory space approved was in the London and south-east region in 1958 and 1959, respectively; and whether he will give this figure for the successive three-monthly periods of 1959.

Mr. J. Rodgers: For schemes of over 5,000 sq. ft., 21 per cent. in 1958 and 17·6 per cent. in 1959; similar figures for the successive quarters of 1959 were 16 per cent., 18·8 per cent., 22·2 per cent. and 13·7 per cent.

Mr. Jay: Is this not rather slow progress, after the promises we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary? Can he promise us that this contraction will go more quickly in future?

Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman ought, I think, to bear in mind not so much the square footage of new factory building as the number of jobs created. A great deal of the square footage to which he refers relates to warehouse space or the rebuilding of existing premises in order to improve the efficiency or productivity of the undertakings.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figure for employment?

Mr. Rodgers: The new employment relating to these schemes was estimated at 16·4 per cent. of the Great Britain total in 1958 and 13·9 per cent. in 1959.

Motor Industry (Expansion)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now granted industrial development certificates for major expansion schemes in the motor industry; and in what areas.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has agreed to issue to the British Motor Corporation industrial development certificates for new productive capacity amounting to 3·1 million square feet, of which about 2·2 million square feet is in areas of high unemployment, 250,000 square feet at Swynnerton and 670,000 square feet in the Midlands. This will lead to the creation of over 11,000 new jobs in Scotland, Wales and Merseyside and 1,000 at Swynnerton without expanding the Corporation's labour force in the Midlands beyond the capacity of its existing factories. Discussions are proceeding with other car manufacturers.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister accept our congratulations for following our advice in this respect, and, also, will he congratulate the British Motor Corporation on its co-operation, no doubt with some inducement? Further, will he keep up this good work, not forgetting the North-East Coast, in future?

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that no part of the extension of the car industry has come to Scotland at all and that what we have in the plans he has put forward is the manufacture of tractors? Will he remember that what Scotland wants is an assurance that we shall have part of the car industry?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Certainly, we are indebted to the British Motor Corporation for its co-operation with us in achieving what we have so far achieved. I ask the hon. Lady to exercise a little patience.

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with motor manufacturers with a view to the re-siting or the expansion of the motor industry beyond its present location.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with representatives of the


motor car industry; and in particular whether he will estimate the prospects of any expansion of that industry being sited in Scotland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is engaged in discussions with the leading motor vehicle manufacturers with a view to securing new capacity and new jobs for the areas of high unemployment. The House will welcome the recent announcement of the British Motor Corporation's plans, which provide for 12,000 new jobs outside their traditional centres, 5,600 in Scotland.

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to consultations with the motor manufacturers, he has had consultations also with the trade unions concerned in order to make sure that this otherwise very desirable action does not result in competition in wages between the areas concerned? Further, will he say whether, in view of the interest of the steel industry, the machine tool industry and the electrical industry in the matter, he has consulted those wider interests also?

Mr. Rodgers: We are in constant touch with the trade union representatives on all these matters. At the present moment, we are concentrating on discussions with the motor car industry. Talks with other industries will follow.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Scotland will not be completely satisfied with the extension which is being given there, and that the 5,000-odd jobs which are to be created represent only about 5 per cent. of the current figure for unemployed in Scotland. It does not go nearly far enough. Will he assure us that the simple fact that there has been this steering to Scotland will not adversely affect Scotland's chances of getting something from Ford, Vauxhall, Rootes, and so on?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that it would be wise for me to say anything more about current negotiations which are proceeding.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much public money these companies are receiving, on what terms, and why they cannot find their own money?

Mr. Rodgers: The only scheme so far announced, that of B.M.C., will cost

about £9½ million. The terms are not specially favourable to B.M.C.; they are available to any firm which would go to these particular areas.

Horses (Export to Republic of Ireland)

Captain Pilkington: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many horses were exported from the United Kingdom to Eire in 1959.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Two thousand and ninety-one.

Captain Pilkington: Does the Board of Trade keep any check on what happens to these horses? Have the Government conveyed to Eire their hope that the cruel and inhuman traffic in horses with France will be stopped?

Mr. Rodgers: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is really barking up the wrong pole, because the average value per animal exported was £1,600. Live horses having a value below £120 cannot be exported without an export licence. There is, therefore, no evidence at all that we have contributed to the export of animals for human consumption.

Mr. Snow: Nevertheless, will the Minister pay attention to what his hon. and gallant Friend has said and bear in mind that many hon. Members of the House—I think I can say this of all hon. Members—have been horrified at this trade between Eire and France, and that anything he can do to bring his influence to bear on the Eire Government will be appreciated?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sunderland (Industrial Development)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking regarding the development of sites for industrial purposes in or near Sunderland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that following consultations between Sunderland Corporation, the National Coal Board and the Board of Trade Regional Office, a new site suitable for industrial use has been found at North Hylton Road. No decisions have yet been taken about its development.

Mr. Willey: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that information, which is very encouraging to us in Sunderland, but does he not agree that what we need, in view of our persistently high level of unemployment, is a new industry? Have we any hope that we may receive an extension of the motor industry for Sunderland?

Mr. Rodgers: We certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that diversification is required in the north-east, and we do our best to bring it about.

Chemical Fertilisers

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on chemical fertilisers.

Mr. J. Rodgers: It is expected that the report will be ready for publication towards the middle of February.

Machine Tool Production (Sub-Committee)

Sir P. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the appointment of the committee which is to examine certain aspects of methods of machine tool production.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has agreed to the appointment of Sir Steuart Mitchell, Controller of Guided Weapons and Electronics as the chairman of a small sub-committee which will have the following terms of reference:
To consider the Report by Professor Melman prepared for European Productivity Agency Project No. 420, and to report to the Machine Tool Advisory Council what action could usefully be taken by the United Kingdom machine tool industry on his recommendations.
I am circulating the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir P. Roberts: In making any further announcements on this subject, will my hon. Friend specially emphasise the high quality and high reputation of British machine tools throughout the world?

Mr. Rodgers: I think we had better await the findings of this particular sub-committee.

Mr. Lee: Could not the hon. Gentleman short-circuit a great deal of this by agreeing to publish the Report of the D.S.I.R. which investigated the machine tool industry? Why cannot we have that information now?

Mr. Rodgers: That particular question has been answered previously by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: Can we, at least, be sure that this new report will be published?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Albu.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Speaker, I think I asked a reasonable supplementary question, but no answer has been given.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister showed no signs of desiring to answer. In the circumstances, I called the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu).

Mr. Rodgers: I am quite happy to answer. The proceedings and reports to the Machine Tool Advisory Council are confidential so that members may express their views frankly; but, when the appropriate time comes, there will be a public statement on the findings of the sub-committee.

Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say whether the report of this sub-committee will be published, how soon we are likely to receive it, and whether the membership of the sub-committee includes users, including those many users who are highly critical of the British machine tool industry?

Mr. Rodgers: It is expected that the sub-committee will complete its work during the next four or five months. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the list of members, users are included on the sub-committee.

Mr. Gaitskell: What objection can there be to the report of this sub-committee being published? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a refusal to publish a report of this kind can create only the worst suspicions in people's minds that something is seriously wrong with


the machine tool industry? Is it not far better in these matters to be completely open and frank?

Mr. Rodgers: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await the findings of this particular sub-committee and the statement which will eventually be made as a result of its deliberations.

Following is the list of members:
The membership of the sub-committee which has been set up to examine certain aspects of methods of machine tool production is as follows:—

Sir Steuart Mitchell, K.B.E., C.B., Controller of Guided Weapons and Electronics, Ministry of Aviation (Chairman).
Mr. R. W. Asquith, Asquith Machine Tool Corporation Ltd.
Mr. W. J. Carron, Amalgamated Engineering Union.
Colonel C. W. Clark, D.S.O., O.B.E., M.C. Alfred Herbert Ltd.
Mr. R. C. Giggins, General Electric Co. Ltd.
Mr. E. T. Grainger, O.B.E., Board of Trade. Mr. J. G. Lloyd, Vickers-Armstrongs (Engineers) Ltd.
Mr. J. B. L. Munro, C.B., C.M.G., Board of Trade.
Mr. R. D. G. Ryder, Thomas Ryder &amp; Son, Ltd.
Mr. A. Siddall, Joseph Lucas (Electrical) Co. Ltd.
Mr. K. D. Rogers, Board of Trade (Secretary).

Merseyside (New Industry)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, by provision for or encouragement of new basic industries on Merseyside, he will take in order to reduce the relatively high level of unemployment in the area.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has recently agreed to build a new factory of 450,000 square feet at Kirkby for the British Motor Corporation which will employ 1,500 people. I shall continue to do all I can to persuade other industrialists to establish new factories on Merseyside and in the other areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Irvine: What the hon. Gentleman refers to is a move in the right direction, but does he agree that it does not go nearly far enough? Does he not agree that what is necessary is the setting up in the area of major projects which will absorb a larger number of the unemployed in the area?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that new firms need to be introduced into the area, but I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is estimated that over 10,000 new jobs are already in the pipeline.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Owner-occupied Property)

Mr. W. Clark: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost to the national revenue of doubling the existing repairs allowance on owner-occupied property.

Mr. Amory: About £13 million.

Mr. W. Clark: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the national revenue of exempting from assessment the first £15 of net annual value of Schedule A tax on owner-occupied property.

Mr. Amory: In the region of £20 to £25 million.

Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, and I do not wish to intrude on the fiscal purdah into which he has now entered, but, in framing his next Budget, will he consider the advisability of increasing the repairs allowance to a more realistic figure and extending the concession at the moment given to Post Office savers to house savers, to the extent of exempting the first £15 of net annual value?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I would ask him if he, in his turn, will look at what the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Incomes said on both the points to which he has referred.

Cinemas (Entertainments Duty)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates that the cinema tax will yield, on the basis of present cinema admissions, in the year ending 31st March, 1960.

Mr. Amory: The Budget estimate included £9¼ million in respect of Entertainments Duty, and it was estimated


that this would be reduced to £7¼ million by the relief under Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1959. It is not the practice to publish revised estimates during the course of the year.

Mr. Rankin: The yield from the exhibitor, as the Chancellor knows, is steadily diminishing. Does he realise that, at the other end of the industry, millionaires are being made almost every day and that one gentleman recently observed that the easiest way to become a millionaire was to produce British films? Does he intend to continue this ill-balanced system whereby the poor are taxed in order to help the rich? Will he afford some relief to the exhibiting side in his forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If millionaires are being created, as he suggests, when they have been created I shall hope, with confidence, to get some contribution from them towards my general taxation.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is that an intimation that we are to expect a capital gains tax in the next Budget?

Mr. Amory: I said that, when the creation of the millionaires had taken place, I should hope to receive something from them.

Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwin

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the dissatisfaction created by the equity of denationalised steel firms which have appreciated in value being offered to the public and the prior charge stocks which mostly stand at a discount being retained by the authorities, if he will arrange that Richard Thomas and Baldwin's capital be converted into all ordinary stock before being offered for sale to the public, and so avoid any prior charge stocks remaining in the hands of the authority.

Mr. Amory: Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, lays on the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency the duty of, inter alia, returning nationalised iron and steel companies to private ownership in such a way as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained is financially adequate. In arranging any

sales the Agency will, no doubt, take account of all material factors, including those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it has been rather un-satisfactory in the past that the equities which have been sold back to the public have risen to enormous premiums, whereas the fixed interest bearing stocks which have been retained are at a discount? To obviate this obvious unfairness to the taxpayer and to the nation, will not my right hon. Friend see that the whole of this capital is combined into one equity and offered to those who will buy it?

Mr. Amory: I have no doubt that the Agency will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The Agency having been set up for this purpose, however, we must leave it to the Agency to decide the best way in which it can carry out its rôle.

Mr. Lee: Is the Chancellor aware that there is substance in what his hon. Friend asks? The value of the ordinary shares of Colvilles, for example, has increased since 1955 from £13 million to nearly £40 million and this increase has been lost to the public because it has gone to the pockets of private shareholders. Does not the Chancellor agree that the sudden interest in Richard Thomas and Baldwin rather sterns from the fact that last year its working profits increased by 26 per cent., showing the very great success of public enterprise in the steel industry? Will he, therefore, take this as a cardinal feature of the great success of nationalised steel and retain it in public enterprise?

Mr. Amory: Listening to the hon. Member, my thoughts are rather more that the difficulties that the industry has had in raising capital in recent years have not been unconnected with the threats offered by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the success of Richard Thomas and Baldwin, as shown by its accounts, and the part played by the workers in the creation of this wealth, does the Chancellor think that there is any reason at all for denationalisation?

Mr. Amory: Yes. I would certainly never wish to agree that the workers in any successful industry were not entitled to their share of credit for the success of the industry. I would say that the success of these industries which have been denationalised, as well as those which have remained in public ownership, shows that this industry is perfectly capable of being run efficiently under private ownership, much more than under public ownership.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that all of us in this House who had the opportunity of being elected or otherwise by the workers of Richard Thomas and Baldwin came back with a mandate, not for denationalisation, but for continued nationalisation?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that policy proved very popular with the electorate at the last election.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the electorate had not at that time heard the Chancellor describe this nationalised industry as a highly successful venture, will the right hon. Gentleman now take steps, belatedly, through the Conservative Central Office to ensure that they do hear? Will he, secondly, indicate what he thinks will be the total amount of the steel industry's earnings on this basis paid out in dividends in the next year or two as compared with the amount which has been paid back over the past few years?

Mr. Amory: Taken as a whole, the steel industry is a successful industry with excellent prospects. I certainly would not venture to suggest what level of dividends would be appropriate for the future.

Suez Canal (World Bank Loan)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the World Bank on the loan of £20 million to the Government of the United Arab Republic for improvements to the Suez Canal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: The question of the Canal loan was discussed on several occasions during my talks with the President of the International Bank last year.

The Articles of the International Bank provide that only economic considerations are relevant to its decisions, though clearly political factors may be relevant if they affect the economic or financial soundness of a loan application. In the present case it was the judgment of the staff of the Bank that the loan was financially sound and should be approved, and, all things considered, Her Majesty's Government concurred in their judgment.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of that fascinating bit of hindsight by Her Majesty's Government, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer carry it a little further in the economic prospects of Egypt and tell us why the World Bank has been so lacking in foresight regarding the second stage of the Aswan Dam?

Mr. Amory: I could not give the hon. Member any information about that at this stage, nor would I accept his view as to the attitude of the World Bank so far.

Mr. W. Yates: When my right hon. Friend next sees the head of the World Bank, will he impress upon him that it is not only the Soviet Union that is interested in the people in the Middle East, but that Great Britain, too, has a part to play? Will not he again consider carefully Britain's contribution to the Aswan Dam?

Mr. Amory: The President of the World Bank, with whom I am in frequent touch, is aware of the general policies and views of Her Majesty's Government.

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the necessary funds to acquire for the nation the freehold of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

Mr. Amory: This proposal has to be considered in relation to the many other demands on the Exchequer, in respect both of the main services of Government and of support for the arts. At this period of the year, I cannot undertake to given priority to one particular project of this nature.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that last year the trustees spent £57,000 on maintenance


and that they have estimated that by the end of the 42-year lease, over £1 million of public money will have been spent on the maintenance of a privately-owned house? In view of this, does not the Chancellor think that action on the lines suggested would be in the interests, not only of British opera, but also of the Treasury?

Mr. Amory: The kind of consideration to which the hon. Member has referred—the relative advantages of renting or owning property—is perfectly relevant to this case and I shall certainly take into consideration the kind of points that he has raised.

Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the inventoral value at 1st January, 1960, of the net assets of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in respect of the 12 remaining nationalised steel companies out of the 62 companies for which the Agency was made statutorily responsible in 1953; and what further progress has now been made towards total denationalisation of steel;
(2) the amount of the investment at 1st January, 1960, by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in steel companies already denationalised; and when such investments are to be placed on the Stock Exchange for public sale;
(3) having regard to the aggregate value of £196 million at 30th September, 1959, being the book value of the remaining subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, aggregated with the book value of prior charges and including outstanding loans made by the Agency at that date, and to the fact that this figure of £196 million reflects a slow rate of steel denationalisation by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, whether he will now make a statement as to the future policy of the Agency in regard to completion of steel denationalisation and the winding-up of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

Mr. Amory: At 3rd October, 1959, the latest date for which balance sheets

are available, the value of the net assets in the books of the Agency's remaining subsidiaries was £92 million. At 1st January, 1960, the book value to the Agency of its prior charge holdings in and loans to companies already denationalised was £147·8 million.
On the general question, the Agency has a continuing statutory duty to return nationalised iron and steel undertakings to private ownership in such a way as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained is financially adequate. My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate any future offers for sale that the Agency may make.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend perceive that the total of nearly £250 million of public moneys at present invested in the steel companies, nationalised and denationalised, is a sum practically as great as when the 1953 Act was put on the Statute Book? Does not this represent a snail-like progress towards total denationalisation? Will not my right hon. Friend assure that the Conservative Party honours its election pledges at three consecutive General Elections — 1951, 1955 and 1959—and completes the denationalisation of steel and the winding up of I.S.H.R.A. at a very early date?

Mr. Amory: We can rely on the Agency to proceed with its functions with all due speed bearing in mind the requirements that have been laid upon it. I would, however, like to emphasise that any difficulties that it has had in the past have derived not from the policies of Her Majesty's Government, but from the policies and attitude of the Opposition.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that after the Agency has completed the task of disposing of the remaining assets of this nationalised industry, it will not turn its attention to the nationalised railways?

Mr. Amory: That would require drastic amendment of the Act from which the Agency derives its powers.

Mr. Lee: Will the Chancellor make it clear that despite the bias of the Government, Richard Thomas and Baldwin has proved far more efficient, if judged either by the production of steel or the


production of profits, than any other component of the steel industry and that it is despite that—or, it may be, because of it—that the Treasury is now handing it back to private enterprise?

Mr. Amory: I do not possess the technical knowledge to differentiate between the different steel companies in regard to the points which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory Answers to Questions Nos. 41 to 43 inclusive, and, retrospectively, Question No. 36, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at a very early date.

Diesel Fuel Oil (Tax)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an early removal or reduction of the tax on Derv fuel oil.

Mr. Amory: I have received such representations regarding Derv from the Joint Fuel Tax Committee for the Passenger Road Transport Industry as well as from some local authorities.

Mr. Allaun: When the Chancellor is preparing his Budget, will he bear in mind that this tax on bus diesel oil is at the rate of 200 per cent., so that out of the £187,000 spent last year on fuel by the Salford City bus undertaking no less than £130,000 went on tax? Since bus transport is a necessity for most people. will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing this tax rather than giving, as he did in his last Budget, £45 million a year in tax relief to those with incomes of over £2,000 a year?

Mr. Amory: I will, of course, take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his official visit to Africa.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I think it might be more satisfactory if we were to await my right hon. Friend's return.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not entirely displeased with some of the things that the Prime Minister has said and done, but, as so many of the statements which he has made are subject to interpretation, they have led to some confusion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to Answers given to Questions in the House on 1st and 15th December, the Prime Minister gave us to understand that it was very likely that he would be seeing Dr. Hastings Banda? Why has the Prime Minister gone back on that?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member can be sure that I shall pass on his gracious message to my right hon. Friend. It will hearten him in a tour which already has been marked by great success. In answer to the hon. Member's second point, I do not accept at all that my right hon. Friend has gone back on anything that he has said, and I would repudiate that absolutely.

Mr. Callaghan: While we are all watching with fascinated attention the contortions of the Prime Minister in Accra, Lagos and Salisbury, would the Home Secretary pass on a message to him that he can avoid any further embarrassment by giving an answer to the very simple question whether the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia will have the right to choose whether they will continue in the Federation or not?

Mr. Butler: I do not think a clearer statement could have been made than my right hon. Friend's speech at Salisbury on 19th January. I would refer hon. Members to that speech.

Mr. Gaitskell: While the Leader of the House can make even more obscure statements than the Prime Minister, nevertheless can he say whether the Prime Minister means that people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia can choose between Federation on the one hand and independence as independent States on the other?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the speech of my right hon. Friend in Salisbury, to which I would draw the


attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The more they read and study it the better.

Mr. Callaghan: While this matter is in some ways semi-humorous, is there not really a tragic side to it? Millions of Africans in the two territories are anxiously waiting to know the policy of the British Government with regard to their future. Should not a clear statement be made to these people so that we can know what their future is and so that they will not have to try to follow all these involved speeches of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: I have with me a copy of my right hon. Friend's speech at Salisbury. The passage in which he refers to this matter and takes up what he said at Lagos is clear and should be read by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. It would be a mistake to make any further additions to that speech at Question Time.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the Home Secretary say that the Prime Minister's pronouncement is the clearest statement that we have at the moment?

Mr. Butler: I would say that it was a clear statement of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what study of prison conditions he made during his tour of Africa.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Would not the Home Secretary agree that the Prime Minister is missing a unique opportunity for completing his political education? Could not he arrange to be taken into protective custody, where he might meet Dr. Banda and have the experience which a good many Prime Ministers who will attend the Commonwealth Conference already have had?

Mr. Butler: I have already promised my right hon. Friend that on the resumption of Parliament the first supplementary question put by the hon. Member

would be immediately telegraphed to him for his delectation and amusement, and I shall certainly do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the increase in the nature and complications of the duties of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the fact that those duties involve his frequent attendance and representation at relevant conferences outside Great Britain, if he will now arrange for a separate Minister of Cabinet rank to discharge the duties of the Fisheries Department unfettered by other duties.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a similar Question on 5th February, 1957, we believe that the interests of the fishing industry are best served by the present arrangements.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon Gentleman realise that the policy which that kind of Answer represents places Britain at a great disadvantage and in a dilemma in relation to conferences, such as the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva? Either Britain will be authoritatively represented at that conference, in which event food and agriculture in this country will be neglected, or Britain will not be adequately represented and will suffer as she suffered at the last similar conference.

Mr. Butler: An announcement will be made shortly about the composition and leadership of this delegation. I think that the House will be perfectly well satisfied with the announcement when it is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, and with the


Nigerian Government, about the representation of the Government of the Federation of Nigeria at the Commonwealth Conference next May: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir. It would not be appropriate for Nigeria to be represented at a Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers before she has attained her independence and been admitted to full membership of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he can justify the acceptance of a Rhodesian into the Commonwealth councils when no part of Rhodesia is independent, and yet he refuses to accept Nigeria which is on the verge of independence?

Mr. Butler: This custom has developed over several years. First, the Prime Minister of the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland have been present at these meetings. They have not been present at all the business meetings or when questions of new members applying arise. We hope that the independence of Nigeria will be promoted in due course by a Bill passed through this House, and that would be the time for the Prime Minister to attend as a full member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would not it be better to look at this matter from the broader point of view of our future relations with Nigeria if, as my hon. and learned Friend has said in effect, territories which have not achieved full independence have been represented at the Commonwealth Conference in the past? Since Nigeria is shortly to achieve full independence, would not it be a gracious gesture to invite the Prime Minister of the Federation to attend?

Mr. Butler: No. This matter has been considered and a ruling has been given on it. I am not satisfied that all members of the Commonwealth will agree to this course. As the Commonwealth is essentially a club, it is important that we

should proceed with the agreement of all members. In the interests of Nigeria and Nigerian independence, I should like to underline that this House and this country are looking forward to the day when Nigeria is independent, and the sooner we can bring about the final steps to this end the better. There is no question of any derogation of dignity arising from Questions and Answers in the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the Home Secretary's last statement, may I ask him whether the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth have been consulted? If they have not been consulted, this matter might well be raised, at any rate, at the Commonwealth Conference itself.

Mr. Butler: Certainly. I should not be associated myself with the Conference. I will bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister who will normally be the chairman of the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if, now that a date for a Summit meeting has been agreed, he will propose to the heads of Governments concerned a joint declaration in favour of stopping nuclear tests, ceasing work on the construction of rocket bases, and suspending the distribution of weapons of nuclear capability, in order further to relax tension between now and the conference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Declarations of this kind are no substitutes for binding international agreements under proper control such as Her Majesty's Government are working for.

Mr. Swingler: Now that at long last a date for Summit talks has been fixed a long way ahead, would not the acting Prime Minister agree that in the coming months everything should be done to create the best possible climate for these Summit talks to reach international agreement? Therefore, will he not suggest—the suggestion is mentioned in the Question—to his right hon. Friend some


initiative in the next few weeks to try to slow down or to bring to an end the nuclear arms race?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We attach the utmost importance to making progress by current negotiations over nuclear tests. It is also our hope that the total disarmament discussion in the 10-Power Disarmament Committee may result in progress towards balanced and controlled international disarmament. It is in these ways that we think we shall show our intentions.

BANK RATE (INCREASE)

Mr. H. Wilson: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the increase in Bank Rate which was made with his authority on Thursday, 21st January.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The economy has been expanding rapidly since the middle of last year. This is a welcome development which has accorded with the needs of the situation. But in recent weeks there have been a number of indications that some strains may he developing. It is important to avoid the emergence of renewed inflationary pressures, and particularly any weakening of the present healthy condition of the balance of payments. Last Thursday's move was intended, in the light of both external and internal circumstances, as a moderating factor against such a development.

Mr. Wilson: As the Treasury statement last Thursday particularly stressed the internal factors, does this mean that the Chancellor now, almost three months after the election, thinks we are having it too good? Will he not accept the view of, I think, a very large number of people, not necessarily just those on this side of the House, that since we have at last, after all these years, just begun to get an improvement in investment in manufacturing industry, and a recovery from the cuts imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), it is most regrettable that he should choose that very moment to put the brake on?

Mr. Amory: No. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If there is any

danger of the internal economy getting out of balance it is due to a slight feeling of exuberance as a result of the enhanced confidence in the country's prospects as a result of the General Election.
The changing prospects of industrial investment is, of course, one factor, but only one factor. We have to remember all investment, and the prospects are that total investment, public investment, private industrial investment, and private investment as well as industrial investment taken together, are going to show a very substantial increase.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman told us that this exuberance to which he refers has been characterised partly by a big increase in consumption, and that we cannot now afford the increase in investment we have all been calling for. But is he aware that it is widely considered that one reason for this action last week—indeed, it was so stated—was the degree of speculation in the City which has followed the election? Is it not a tragedy that industrial investment should have been held back because the Government could not do anything to prevent excessive speculation?

Mr. Amory: It is a question of keeping all these things in balance. This move is not due to any one factor, but in consideration of all the factors involved, and the consideration of all the factors involved pointed to the wisdom of this step of slight moderation. I am quite sure that it will prove to be a timely step.

Mr. C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the people will welcome this further step as a check to inflation which may be developing, because what they want above all is stable prices? If this is what it will achieve, they will be glad this step has been taken.

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. This country has enjoyed a high level of activity, taken as a whole, with stability of prices for eighteen months. That is something very precious and well worth preserving.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that this increase in Bank Rate will affect the amount of capital investment supposed to take place in the Development Areas?

Mr. Amory: I would certainly hope not.

Mr. Mellish: Is there anything the Chancellor can do to make certain that the interest charges on the purchase of houses will certainly not go up? Is he aware that today the prices of houses are probably greater than they have ever been in the history of the country and that hundreds of thousands of people wanting to buy their houses cannot do so because of the present policies of the Government? Can he do something about that?

Mr. Amory: The policy of the Government is to do everything we can to maintain stable prices. That is the important point. The whole object of this kind of exercise, of keeping the balance in good time, is to ensure that we continue to enjoy stability of prices.

Mr. J. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, apart from costing the local authorities more for borrowing and making it more difficult for people to buy houses, this will have any appreciable effect whatever in checking inflation? If so, will he tell us what is the purpose of the Radcliffe Report?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that there is any conflict with the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee. The prospects for housing, taking it as a whole, look to me to be extremely favourable at present. It looks as though the total number of houses under construction is likely to show a continuing increase.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is this not a striking indication of the way in which the Government, during the last few years, have allowed the balance of employment in different parts of the country to get out of hand, so that they should feel it necessary to take anti-inflationary measures while so many parts of the country are so far short of full employment?

Mr. Amory: I think that if we waited till the pressure on the economy became such that there was absolutely full employment everywhere in the country, the anti-inflationary steps which would have to be taken then would be far more extreme and would militate against precisely the object of securing expansion of employment in those areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

BARTON BRIDGE (ACCIDENT)

Sir S. Storey: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the accident which occurred on Wednesday, 30th December, 1959, upon the new high level Barton Bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. Four steel girders of this bridge collapsed while it was under construction, killing two men and injuring eight. I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in extending our sympathy to all those involved, and particularly to the families and relatives of the two men killed.
The circumstances of the accident were investigated at once by members of the Factory Inspectorate, who are also attending on my behalf the inquest at present being held. I am sure the House will feel it desirable for me to postpone making any statement until the inquest is completed.

Sir S. Storey: While thanking the Minister for his expression of sympathy, and appreciating his desire to postpone making any further statement till the inquest has been completed, may I ask him whether, as this is the third fatal accident which has occurred in the construction of this bridge and the approach roads, he is satisfied that Lancashire County Council exercises sufficient supervision over the safety arrangements of its contractors and sub-contractors?

Mr. Heath: I should like to consider that point in the light of the evidence given at the inquest.

Mr. Robens: I should like to join this side of the House in the expression of sympathy extended to the families and relatives of the men who have been killed.
May I ask the Minister, however, whether he would undertake to publish the report of the Factory Inspectorate immediately after the inquest rather than wait for the Inspectorate's annual report, in which it would normally appear?
As the number of workmen now being killed week by week on projects of this kind is rising alarmingly, it would be as


well, would it not, if we could have this accident reported upon in full by the Inspectorate after the inquest so that we might decide whether a debate would be desirable upon the whole question of regulations dealing with safety in new building programmes?

Mr. Heath: I will certainly give consideration to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

MONCKTON COMMISSION (PROTECTION OF WITNESSES)

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): With regard to the protection of witnesses appearing before the Monckton Commission, I am glad to be able to make the following statement.
The Government of Southern Rhodesia and the Attorneys-General of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have given assurances in the following terms:
No statement made to the Commission, whether orally or in writing, will be used in evidence in any criminal proceedings; this does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or re-publication of written evidence given to the Commission.
The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governor of Nyasaland have given assurances to the same effect with regard to the making of detention and restriction orders and proceedings arising out of such orders.
All these assurances also apply to members of the Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: Does this really mean that, although a witness is protected in what he says to the Commission, a newspaper may not publish any account of the proceedings that take place? Does it mean that a newspaper may not publish the written evidence that may be submitted, that the leaders of the Congress Party may not consult with their followers about the nature of the evidence they shall give, or report to them afterwards about the type of evidence that has been given or the questions that have been asked?
If this is so, does the Minister of State really think that this is a valuable protection to witnesses? Does he not realise that this is likely to lead to an increase in the work of agents provocateurs and

of spying on people who give evidence? Does the hon. Gentleman know that the penalty here is a maximum of fourteen years' imprisonment? Will not he consider this matter again?

Mr. Alport: I think that this assurance is extremely valuable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is in the same terms as the assurance given to witnesses coming before the Devlin Commission, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that the object of the assurance is to enable witnesses to speak freely and openly when they come before a Commission to give their evidence.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my questions? Are they right in fact or not?

Mr. Alport: The answer is, "No".

Mr. Callaghan: What, then, is meant by the words that the protection
does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or republication of written evidence given to the Commission"?
Does not this mean that a newspaper may not be free to publish, or is liable to be charged if it publishes, such evidence or if a body giving evidence reproduces it? How can the hon. Gentleman say that the answer is "No"?

Mr. Alport: A newspaper is under obligation to respect the law of the land and is also at liberty to repeat or publish anything which is in accordance with its judgment. As far as the repetition of these matters outside is concerned, the object of this assurance, as it was in the case of the Devlin Commission, is to make certain that anybody giving evidence before the Commission is able to do so freely and fairly. That is the object, and witnesses obtain the same privileges and protection as do witnesses before a Committee of the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no one who is in Nyasaland will feel very much confidence in knowing that the procedure that was followed before the Devlin Commission will be followed now, in view of the Government's treatment of it? Is it not a fact that anyone who reproduces any


of the evidence given in front of this Commission is liable to imprisonment for a period of up to fourteen years or a substantial fine? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is really the way to gain the confidence of those Africans whom he wishes to give evidence?

Mr. Alport: This is certainly a way of ensuring that anybody who gives evidence before the Commission does so freely and fairly. I do not know what evidence the hon. Gentleman has for his reference to the treatment of witnesses coming before the Devlin Commission, subsequent to or before their appearance before it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is it not correct that the passage which the hon. Gentleman has just read gives no protection of any kind against civil proceedings? Is it not essential, in providing security for witnesses, that they should have protection against civil proceedings? Is it not an undesirable method of dealing with this matter for it to be stated here that the law of Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia is to be overridden by the exercise of a discretion by the Governor? Is not the only proper method that will provide certain immunity for witnesses before the Commission, first, to amend the law and, secondly, to provide immunity from civil proceedings?

Mr. Alport: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct in that. As far as the Devlin Commission is concerned, there were no immunities from civil proceedings in the case of evidence given before the Commission. I do not think that anybody in the House or anywhere else has advanced the view that witnesses appearing before that Commission were inhibited in what they said on that account.
As to the second point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers—the power of the Governor to override the law on this matter—the undertakings to which I referred at the end of my statement are undertakings similar to those given by the Governor of Nyasaland in relation to detention and restriction orders in Nyasaland in the case of the Devlin Commission.

Mr. Iremonger: May I ask my hon. Friend whether any assurances have been forthcoming that Africans who give evidence which is not palatable to the Congress Party will be protected against intimidation?

Mr. Alport: I can assure my hon. Friend and the House—now that the matter has been raised—that the object of this assurance is to make certain that evidence is given without fear either of victimisation, on the one hand, or intimidation, on the other.

Mr. Wade: I understand that no statement made before the Commission will be used in evidence or taken into account in making a detention order. Can we have an assurance that this will also apply to the prolongation of a detention order against a person already detained who may wish to give evidence?

Mr. Alport: Perhaps it is difficult to take in all the points in a statement of this sort, but I said
… and proceedings arising out of such orders.
and what is intended there is that when the review of any detention or restriction order is undertaken any statement made at the Commission will not be used in evidence to ensure any prolongation or to affect any decision made by a tribunal concerned with advice as to whether a detention or restriction order should be continued.

Mrs. Castle: Could the hon. Gentleman state why it is he who is making this statement, in view of the fact that this matter was first raised before the Recess in connection with the protection of African witnesses from Nyasaland particularly threatened by Emergency Regulation No. 35? In view of African fears that their safety is now being increasingly handed over to the Federal Government, is it not most unwise for the Commonwealth Relations Department to have made this statement, thus implying that the Colonial Secretary has washed his hands of his responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of British-protected persons threatened by one of his own Emergency Regulations?

Mr. Alport: This is not by any means the case. If the hon. Lady cares to wait for a statement which is to be made by


my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary almost immediately she will find her question answered.

Mr. Stonehouse: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will he no proceedings or other actions taken against Africans who refuse to appear before the Monckton Commission?

Mr. Alport: In answer to a previous Question, before Christmas, I said that there was no intention of making it compulsory or of forcing anybody to give evidence before the Monckton Commission. Therefore, it follows that no proceedings would be taken against anyone who refused to do so.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If a witness gives evidence before the Commission, and that evidence is reported subsequently in a newspaper, will the witness be under any peril in consequence of the publication of the report?

Mr. Alport: No, Sir.

Mr. Mendelson: Does the ruling which the hon. Gentleman has just announced about re-publication imply that if, in due course, the minutes of evidence are published as a State Paper in the House, or made available to the House, the publication of extracts from that Paper will be an illegal act in the Federation?

Mr. Alport: It does not follow in any way that it would be an illegal act, but as far as the United Kingdom is concerned any publication of this sort would carry with it the normal privileges of a State Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: Does it not all add up to the fact that the Minister is really saying, with the assistance of the Attorney-General, "The law is what I say it is, and I shall either prosecute or not prosecute according to how it suits my convenience. I shall not prosecute if the report is officially sent out, but I will prosecute in other circumstances"? Will not arbitrary decisions of this kind undermine the confidence of all Africans in the good intentions of the Government?

Mr. Alport: That is not true and the hon. Gentleman, in making a statement like that, is really making it more difficult for Africans to give evidence before the Commission. I would have assumed that, whatever he or his colleagues may

feel about the Commission, they would wish that those Africans who desire to give evidence before it should not be debarred from doing so by anything said in this House. My statement today was intended, as in the case of the Devlin Commission, to give assurance to those Africans who wish to give evidence before the Commission that they may do so freely and without fear of prosecution subsequently.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Minister aware that the only intention I have in this matter is to make certain that the evidence which will come out before this Commission can be made known publicly without fear or favour and that there shall be no arbitrary prosecution of anybody who discloses his evidence, and that the best way to secure this would be for the Minister to recommend the repeal of the Emergency Regulations?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does not the Minister's statement show the impossibility of providing effective legal protection in a society where, in fact, the rule of law has been suspended?

RT. HON. MEMBER FOR EBBW VALE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Mr. Speaker, I ask for the indulgence of the House to intervene for a moment.
During the Recess we were all very distressed indeed to hear of the operation and severe illness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I rise to express, on behalf of the whole House, our sympathy with his wife, the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), and with his relatives and friends, and to say how much we wish the right hon. Gentleman a recovery from this serious illness. I hope that the sense of feeling of this House may perhaps come through to him and give him strength in the struggle that he is going through.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I say for this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, that we much appreciate the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I am sure that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)


and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will take some heart from the general and universal feelings of sympathy shown in the House, and indeed in the country generally, during my right hon. Friend's serious illness.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I happen to know that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is contemplating rising to a point of order, and I think that this would be a convenient moment.

Mrs. Castle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that on the day when the House rose for the Christmas Recess I raised with you what I suggested was an abuse of a Minister's quite arbitrary power to transfer Questions from one Department to another. The case arose on the very matter we have been discussing earlier.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) and myself raised the question of the protection of African witnesses from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia against civil criminal proceedings in giving evidence before the Monckton Commission. Our Questions could not be reached on the day they otherwise would have been reached when we tabled them to the Colonial Secretary, because, to our astonishment, they were transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. Therefore, we had the situation that the House went away without having any information on this important matter.
I suggested to you at that time, Sir, that there ought to be some protection for hon. Members against the quite unreasonable refusal by a Minister to accept responsibility for a matter for which he was clearly responsible, as the Colonial Secretary was in this case responsible for the safety of British-protected persons who were suffering danger under Emergency Regulation No. 35. You, Sir, were good enough at that time to say that you would look into this case, and the Leader of the House also undertook to discuss with the Table whether any check should be put upon the powers of Ministers to transfer Questions in this way and thus evade their

clear constitutional responsibility. I should be very grateful, Sir, if you and the Leader of the House have any information to give us on this point.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I promised to look into the transfer of her Questions and those of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), and I did so. The result of my inquiries is that there was nothing exceptional about the transfer. The rule which was followed, as far as the Chair and the Table is concerned, is the one which has always been followed, namely, that the Government of the day are responsible for saying which Minister is primarily responsible. There are obviously conveniences about that, and I imagine that is why the rule has always been so.
As to why, in this instance, responsibility was accepted by the Minister to whom the Questions were transferred, that is clearly a matter for which the Government must make answer, but as regards the Table nothing exceptional was done. As the House knows, when the Table receives the document which is the Department's notification to the Member that the Question has been transferred, the Table transfers it as a result of that notification.
On the other matter, I understand that there have been some discussions at official level about how to improve the mechanics of informing Members about transfer. I do not know whether the Leader of the House can help us as to the rest.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. You and your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have repeatedly ruled that the discretion on Questions is a matter not for the Chair, but for Ministers, who alone know the precise limits of their responsibility. We are, therefore, doing no more than following the practice which has been followed by successive Governments in the past.
The suggestion has sometimes been made that the Clerk at the Table should be the final arbiter of the discretion on Parliamentary Questions. We have considered whether it would be possible to recommend any such change of practice to the House, but have reached the conclusion that it would not be possible.


While the scope and responsibility of Ministers in some instances Is laid down by Statute, decisions on the responsibility of Ministers are not such as can be made by the mere application of rules. In the last resort the division of responsibility between Departments is a matter for the Government and the Prime Minister. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that there is no alternative to the present system whereby Ministers themselves are the judges of the proper discretion on Questions.
Now, on the specific subject of Questions about the Monckton Commission, which I undertook before the Recess that we would look into, my right hon. Friends and I have considered what should be the proper division of responsibility, and we have agreed on the following formula. Questions about the Monckton Commission, including its powers and procedures, will be answered by Commonwealth Relations Office Ministers. However, Questions referring to actions which the Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Governments have taken, or might take, in relation to the work of the Commission clearly fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and will be answered by Colonial Office Ministers. We should expect in most instances that Questions on this subject could fall fairly clearly under one or other of these headings. Where a Question does not do so, the duty of answering will fall to the Minister whose responsibilities appear primarily to be involved.
I would say, in conclusion, that I have consulted my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Administration on the mechanics of informing hon. Members and that we will try to make the passage of information to hon. Members about the transfer, or possible transfer, of a Question a little more elastic, and perhaps a little more humane, than it has been in the past. Steps have been taken to advise my hon. Friends of that possible move and we will try to improve things in that respect.
On the general issue, I think that under the circumstances I am following the precedent of this and of other Governments, and that on the particular issue I am going as far as I can to satisfy the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the action you have taken, is it not now quite clear that the Questions of my hon. and learned Friend and myself were wrongly transferred? Are you not aware that, shortly after the House had gone into recess, the Colonial Secretary himself referred to the subject matter of our Questions in a speech at Leeds on 2nd January, in which he said the following:
We recognise the force of this and we are now discussing with the Governments concerned what form an assurance might take.
The Governments concerned in this case were clearly the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and, according to the Leader of the House, any questions which involve those Governments are the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary, and, therefore, he should have answered the Questions which we put down.
I raise this point to illustrate the fact that at present hon. Members have no protection against misjudgments or misbehaviour by Ministers in this matter. I ask that steps should be taken to have it referred to a committee of procedure which can examine the rights of hon. Members and give them protection against what, in this case, has clearly been an abuse.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. Lady to be addressing her remarks to me. Whether or no the transfer was right is, upon principles we have always followed, a question not for the Chair but for the Government of the day. I do not know that we have in existence a procedural body to which the hon. Lady's problem could be referred, but I know that notice will be taken of what she has said, both on the last occasion and again today, on that point.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I understand, Mr. Speaker, you invited the Leader of the House to make this statement. With your permission, therefore, I will address my questions to him.
I can understand the difficulty of departing from the general rule that the Government must decide who should answer Questions where there is ambiguity. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if it appears to hon. Members, whether in opposition or on the Government back benches, that


there is an attempt on the part of the Government to evade a Question by having it transferred to a Minister who is not able to answer it, this will be profoundly unsatisfactory, and the Opposition are not likely to leave it alone?
Specifically on the question of the Monckton Commission, I should like to know where the Prime Minister comes into it. Up to now he has answered most of the Questions relating to the Commission, as being a Royal Commission which he recommends Her Majesty to appoint. Are we to understand that he will not answer Questions about the Monckton Commission in future, and that they will all be transferred either to the Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, or to the Colonial Secretary? Is this not extremely unsatisfactory? For example, if there are further Questions about the terms of reference and the functioning of the Commission, would not these be more appropriately addressed to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. I would rather not give an immediate answer, but it is clear that the Prime Minister could not divest himself of answering a Question relating to the Royal Commission, although when such a Commission is established it usually has the opportunity of getting on with its work without very much questioning. But it would be wrong for me to give a final answer on that point today. I would rather consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said and give an answer later.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not see that it make any difference that the Commission has been set up and is working. If a Question arises is it not more sensible that it should be taken by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: The most sensible thing is to see how the formula that I have read out works. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's first observation, there is no desire on the part of the Government to shuffle off Questions and not answer them. We are perfectly ready to be judged by the operation of this formula, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to make representations, either on the Floor of the

House or in private, they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman has helped the House in the formula which he has given in relation to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), but is he aware that there are other subjects which come before the House, for example, defence subjects? Questions on these subjects have often been addressed to the Prime Minister, but have been transferred to other Departments. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the whole question in relation to other Government Departments, and to give some helpful information for the guidance of hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put before me any aspect of the matter, or difficulty arising in connection with it, I shall certainly consider it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under the formula that he has announced, the Question relating to the Commission raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) would not, in fact, have fallen to be answered by the Colonial Secretary?

Mr. Butler: There has been a good deal of what is called biblical exegesis during the Recess, and it has been somewhat difficult to obtain the exact truth. I have examined the Questions put by the hon. Lady and by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) during the Recess, and it would appear that they might be considered as dealing with subjects falling under the procedure of the Monckton Commission, in which case their being taken by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations would be permissible. But, as I have read out the formula, there is reference to action to be taken, or projected, by the Governments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and such Questions could, therefore, also fall to be answered by the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask why this afternoon's statement was made by the Commonwealth Relations Minister, when we take into account the fact that although three Governments are


involved, the protection of witnesses can be effectively given only by the Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, who are responsible to the Colonial Secretary?

Mr. Butler: That point is covered by the fact that my formula relates to the Commission's powers and procedures, which subjects will be answered by the Commonwealth Relations Ministers.

Mr. Callaghan: But what we are concerned with here are surely not the powers of the Monckton Commission but protection being given, by the Governors of the territories, to witnesses appearing before it. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is on a weak point here, and that he should consider the matter again?

Mr. Butler: I would say that I am not on a weak point, and that I am covered by the right procedures.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Governent Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sitings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT, 1361 (REPEAL)

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal a statute made in the Parliament holden at Westminster, the Sunday next before the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the thirty-fourth year of King Edward the Third, commonly called the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361.
On 19th September, 1356, after years of war and two countries had been laid waste by the devastations of the Plague, the army of the Black Prince, much the smaller force, met the forces of King John of France near Poitiers and inflicted on the French an overwhelming defeat. King John was taken prisoner and was handed over to the custody of King Edward III, and remained for a time at Calais, where a truce was arranged. It was thought that another war to end wars had ended and another permanent peace was about to start its fitful life.
But hon. Members will not be surprised to know that the French Chamber of Deputies refused to ratify the truce. Edward III then reinvaded France, laid waste the Marne, and the French force was defeated at Rheims. Peace terms were finally signed in October, 1859—[Interruption.]—I mean 1659—[Interruption.]—no, 1359, and those peace terms specifically provided that Edward III undertook to introduce measures into this House to provide for dealing with pillers and robbers from beyond the seas, meaning thereby discharged soldiers who could not be found employment as cinema commissionaires.
The House was summoned to meet on the Sunday next before the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul which, as every hon. Member knows, would be about the third week in January of the same year, 1360, because the year then ended in March. [Laughter.] History is not funny. They had many grave problems to deal with, and they were all only too anxious to get back to a long rest the moment they got their men back to work.
Unfortunately, there was a wastage and loss of life, which had reduced the population, and men were demanding


higher wages, so one Section provided a maximum wage of 4d. a day for master builders. There was talk of trade unions, under the name of Covines, which is presumably the Norman French for "Cousins". One Section repressed any such association. There had been difficulties with hawks and gerfalcons and a Section imposed two years' imprisonment on anyone who failed to hand over to the sheriff a hawk which he had found.
Another Section, which was hard on the inhabitants of Rutland, prevented people from leaving one county for another, and the faithful Commons complained that the Queen had been much kinder to the Burghers of Calais than to those of the Poultry in the City, because she was not paying for her chickens. His Majesty was good enough to consent to a special Section providing that the Royal purchases should be paid for in future with promptitude. That was a very useful decision which, unhappily, was repealed before the accession of His Gracious Majesty King George IV.
But I am mainly concerned with the extraordinary omnibus Section dealing with pillers and robbers from beyond the seas—discharged soldiers and workers at large who were not working —and with people who might be found guilty of an offence by indictment or by suspicion. Those words still stand unrepealed. We can convict on suspicion. Finally, there was the extraordinary Section dealing with men not of good faith. The word "not" is in doubt, but it was never in doubt for the first 500 years of life of the Bill. Every copy of the Bill contains the word "not" except the final and essential copy of the Parliamentary Bill itself.
When Sir Edward Coke wrote of this Act in the edition of the Statutes published in 1644 he specifically quotes it as referring to
men not of good faith
and gives specific reasons why it should be there. He quotes the decision of the court at Bridgwater, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, as showing a much more liberal mind, in its interpretation of this Clause, than is shown in the reign of the second Elizabeth.
Many of these matters are now academic, because the courts have decided that the words are "de bone fame."

The word "not" does not appear on the Parliament rolls although it appears on every other contemporary copy of the Act; and as it does not appear on the rolls only people of good faith can be convicted. It will be said that they are not convicted, and that is true—but they go to prison. This Section, first used against George Lansbury, Thomas Mann and trade union leaders, has never been used against anti-Semites or against Sir Oswald Mosley. Under this Section only Christian Socialists have ever been dealt with, besides a few minor offenders of a rather different type.
The Section cannot affect me, because I can establish the fact that I have a bad character. I can prove it affirmatively, and quite a lot of people could prove it for me. The result is that if people want to put me in "jug" they have to arrest me on suspicion.
I understand that this Motion is to be opposed. The Guardian, dealing with this matter in a very thoughtful and reasonable way, expressed some doubt whether I was removing a protection against anti-Semitism. My answer is, first, that the Bill was never used against anti-Semitism and secondly, that if we repeal it the situation may remain very much the same, because the courts have always assumed power, under the common law, to bind over people appearing before them.
The serious matter is not only that people are in prison at present because of this provision but that the one thing in what we call the British way of life is our rule, embodied in Magna Carta and set out in the 29th Article of the confirming Act of Magna Carta, that people will not be convicted on suspicion. If there is anything in this rule it is that people shall not be put in prison for suspicion, or because they are of good character.
If there is anything more contemptible than to say to a man of good character, brought before a court, "We ask you to abjure your faith. If you will you can go free", I should like to know what it is. If hon. Members contemplate voting against the Motion, let them remember that they condemned what happened to people like Cardinal Mindzenty and Archbishop Stepinac, who were confronted by the Communists with the same choice of adjuring their


faith or remaining in prison. It happened, too, in the most famous trial of all time. In the 19th Chapter according to St. John, Pontius Pilate put the same question:
Why speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
It was the same question, the same evil dilemna.
I object even more strongly to the remaining words, that a man may be convicted on suspicion, as part of the law of this land. Way back in the reign of Edward III, eight years after this Bill was passed, an Act was passed to say that anything which conflicted with Magna Carta should be void, and yet this Section still remains.
Finally, in one of the golden pages in the library of liberty, Camille Desmoulins penned in the third number of "Le Vieux Cordelier" his famous indictment of condemnation on suspicion, his famous thesis on suspicion in times of emergency, which could attach to anyone, to the rich who could bribe, to the poor who might be bought, to the serious because they might be dissatisfied and to the frivolous because they were not content. He knew that he was writing his own death warrant. A few weeks later, he went to the scaffold and atoned for that great defence of his which he had written to atone for some of his own errors in the past.
There may have been a few tears in the tumbril, but as he mounted the scaffold he saw further than he had ever seen before and as the setting April sun lit up his head it conferred on the head that fell into the basket an imperishable halo of liberty.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is an unrivalled master of anecdote and ridicule, despite the fact that he got some of his centuries mixed up. So appealing was he that it is difficult to realise that some of the Aunt Sallies which he put up have been laying in the dust for some 600 years, but he proceeded to put them back on the perches from which the House, by past legislation, has knocked them.
Translated into ordinary terms, the Bill which the hon. Member seeks to introduce, dressed up like a radical bird of paradise, is nothing less than a modest charter for peeping Toms and eavesdroppers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and those people who think like him would not approve of any form of eavesdropping, telephonic or otherwise. It is also a charter for other strange people who pester law-abiding citizens and persons of that kind.
There has been powerful judicial authority to the effect that even if the hon. Member's proposed Bill were accepted it would not affect what is the common law or the Commission of the Peace which preceded the Bill of 1361, and all the hon. Member would have thus achieved would be to cause grave uncertainty in the law and that would only provide for the comfort and enrichment of lawyers. I feel that there are few hon. Members who would be encouraged by that particular aspect.
The modern use of the Bill is mainly to prevent the ordinary citizen from being pestered by those unbalanced eccentrics who, with an imagined grudge, patrol the outskirts of houses, terrifying families by constant use of the telephone, or by those people who are unbalanced and usually malevolent but who do not break the law by means of assault or trespass. Therefore, there is no weapon which the law-abiding citizen has against them except the use of these powers which may be the only effective one which rests in the hands of such citizens.
There is a second use, to which the hon. Member referred, and which is in respect of people being bound over when they incite others to break the law. It has been used cautiously and should be used cautiously. Quarrelsome words or "scandalising the Government" are not sufficient. Power of appeal, moreover, was given under the 1956 legislation. It can be used only against those who deliberately encourage others to break the law. Of course, there will always be groups with fierce and determined views about certain pieces of legislation. There may be some with grave dislike of the Road Traffic Acts, or trade unions, or company directors, but if persons are to get up and


incite others to break the law, surely society has the right to say, "No; you must not do this".
An advocate who deliberately goes about encouraging other persons to break the law is now bound over to refrain, under this 1361 legislation. "Preventive justice" it may be called, as the hon. Member called it, but it is based on a principle that should appeal to him, a principle 600 years old, that individual liberty should, on occasions, be sacrificed and abridged for the public good.
Therefore, the position seems to be that if one wants to remove the power, then, first, the Bill does not do it and will only leave the law in a state of gravest uncertainty. If one does not want to remove this power, then at least we retain these essential powers so that we do not encourage roughs and malevolent people and also that we retain the safeguards for ordinary, decent citizens.
The direct result of the hon. Member's proposed Bill may be merely to make beneficiaries of those ugly gentlemen—

and they are not so uncommon—whose practice it is to find a place from which they can watch a maiden lady disrobe. Therefore, although the hon. Member has presented his case and is presenting his Motion from the very highest motives, it will not achieve what he wants it to do and, as Parliamentarians, we should be very jealous of giving approval to anyone wanting to incite others to break the law. Law is made here and should be changed here, or at the polling stations.

I invite all those hon. Members who disapprove of people taking the law into their own hands, all those who disapprove of eavesdroppers and peeping Toms and, as added argument, all those who do not particularly want to see the enrichment of lawyers which the Bill would mean, to vote against the Motion. I ask the House to refuse leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 230.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[4.24 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Awbery, Stan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Grey, Charles
Mahon, Simon


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy


Blyton, William
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mendelson, J. J.


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Denis
Monslow, Walter


Callaghan, James
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Moody, A. S.


Carmichael, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Morris, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hilton, A. V.
Neal, Harold


Chetwynd, George
Holt, Arthur
Oliver, G. H.


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, A. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.


Darling, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Deer, George
Jager, George
Popplewell, Ernest


Donnelly, Desmond
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C.


Evans, Albert
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fell, Anthony
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Finch, Harold
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Logan, David
Short, Edward


Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur




Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene


Slider, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Sylvester, George
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Symonds, J. B.
Wigg, George


Snow, Julian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick


Spriggs, Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Stonehouse, John
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stones, William
Thorpe, Jeremy
Woof, Robert


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Zilliacus, K.


Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Warbey, William



Swain, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Fernyhough and Mr. Lipton




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gardner, Edward
Marshall, Douglas


Aitken, W. T.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marten, Neil


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Allason, James
Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Alport, C. J. M.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mawby, Ray


Arbuthnot, John
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Milligan. Rt. Hon. W. R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Montgomery, Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Green, Alan
Morgan, William


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, John


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Batsford, Brian
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nabarro, Gerald


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Noble, Michael


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Crmsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, Graham


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Clive
Hay, John
Peel, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Box, Donald
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Peyton, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hendry, A. Forbes
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Braine, Bernard
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pitman, I. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott, Percival


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hobson, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Ramsden, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne Rt. Hon. Martin


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Rees, Hugh


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) R
Renton, David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jackson, John
Robertson, Sir David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
James, David
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmith, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roots, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Jennings, J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Collard, Richard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Russell, Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordeaux, Lt.-col. J. K.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Seymour, Leslie


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, William


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Leavey, J. A.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leburn, Gilmour
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cunningham, Knox
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Curran, Charles
Lawis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Drayson, G. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Duncan, Sir James
Longbottom, Charles
Storey, Sir Samuel


Duthie, Sir William
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Eden, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Elliott, R. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Telling, William


Farey-Jones. F. W.
Maclay, Rt, Hon. John
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Menningham, Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gammans, Lady
Marlowe, Anthony
Tilney, John (Wavertree)







Turner, Colin
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Watts, James
Woollam, John


Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, William
Worsley, Marcus


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Vickers, Miss Joan
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wise, Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Sir G. Wills and Sir H. Butcher.


Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, C. M.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN SERVICE BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH BRITISH FILMS ARE TO BE SHOWN, AND CHANGE IN RENTERS' LICENSING YEAR AND QUOTA PERIOD.)

4.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "commencement of this Act" and to insert:
end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty".
The object of the Amendment is to make more time available for consideration of the Bill in another place. Section 44 of the Act of 1938 defines the renters' licensing year as a period of twelve months beginning on the first day of April in any year and ending before the expiry of Section I of the Act of 1948. Section I of the Act of 1948 is due to expire on 1st October, 1960, and but for Clause 1 of the Bill, which extends that Section to the end of 1967, the present renters' licensing year would be the last and would expire on 31st March next.
Clause 18 (5) provides for most of the Bill—including Clause 1—to commence on the first Sunday falling after the expiration of one month from the day on which it is passed. But for the Amendment, therefore, it would be essential, if a new renters' licensing year is to start on 1st April next, for the Bill to receive Royal Assent by 27th February, that is, one month before the last Sunday before the present renters' licensing year expires. It may not be possible for the Bill to pass through all its stages in another place and receive Royal Assent by that date. The Amendment will preserve the effect of Clause 1 and allow a further time, namely, up to and including 31st March for the Bill to pass.

Mrs. Eirene White: We have no objection to the Amendment.

It is purely a matter of procedure. At one time the Government had hoped to get the Bill through before Christmas, but we took a little longer than expected in committee because of inadequate care in the drafting of the Bill. It is only sensible now to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(NEWSREELS.)

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "time", to insert:
and notwithstanding anything in section eleven of this Act".
The Amendment exempts newsreels from the provisions of Clause 11 of the Bill. The newsreel companies have pointed out that the requirement under Clause 11 (a), that, where a film contains more than 10 per cent. of previously registered material, it may not be registered without the consent of the Films Council, would prevent the newsreel companies, without special dispensation, from using old material for special editions as part of their regular series as they are now accustomed to do. These special editions embrace such subjects as the death of a prominent statesman, the tenth anniversary of the accession of the Queen, or the review of the year which the companies make annually in Christmas week.
Further, even greater difficulties arise from the requirement under Clause 11 (b) that, where a film contains more than 10 per cent. of film, the maker of which was not the maker of the film to be registered, it may not be registered as a British quota film without the consent of the Films Council. In practice, newsreels often contain more than 10 per cent. of material obtained on an exchange basis from companies abroad, either within the Commonwealth or outside it. In fact, Clause 2 of the Bill clearly intends that, over and above material derived from the Commonwealth, newsreels should be permitted to contain up to 25 per cent. of material derived from foreign sources.
The main purpose of Clause 11 is to provide for the registration of films, often documentaries or of the scrapbook type, which draw heavily on old material and whose status in the past has been somewhat obscure. It is not the intention of


the Clause that it should be made more difficult for newsreel companies to pursue their normal business. Indeed, this would be contrary to the intention of Clause 2 which, in laying down special provisions for the registration of newsreels, is designed to take the custom of the trade into account. Hence the Amendment to exempt newsreels from the provisions of Clause 11.

Mrs. White: Here again, we raise no objection to the Amendment. We object to the principle of having newsreels at all. But, if we are to have them in, this proviso is reasonable. The arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary would be hard to refute. The newsreels are different in character from the films dealt with in Clause 11. We therefore have no objection to their being exempted in the manner proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "seven" and to insert "five".
This Amendment cuts the time allowed for the registration of newsreels after delivery to an exhibitor from seven days to five days. It will be recalled that in Committee hon. Members opposite put down an Amendment to cut the time allowed for the registration of newsreels from seven days to three days. The Amendment was resisted on the grounds that, while there was no particular virtue in seven days, three days would be too short a period since it would mean that in practice a Thursday newsreel would have to be registered on a Friday, and that there would be further complications during the period of a public holiday such as Christmas. However, the point was pressed and I undertook to consider the question again.
Further discussion on this question has since taken place with the newsreel companies, who say that they could manage if the period of grace for registration were cut either to five days or to three working days. Although it would have been possible to draft an Amendment referring to "three working days", it would be rather cumbersome and accordingly the Amendment is framed in the direct form of cutting the period of grace for registration from seven days to five days.
If there is any suggestion that five days is still too long a period of grace it might be pointed out that public holidays can reduce considerably the effective period of grace given. For instance, last year Christmas Day fell immediately before the weekend on a Friday, so that there were three consecutive days when the offices of the Board of Trade were closed. Further, an application for registration will have to be accompanied by a statutory declaration made before a commissioner for oaths who may not be readily accessible at a period of public holidays.

Mr. John Rankin: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government on seeing the wisdom of the arguments advanced by hon. Members on this side of the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, we moved an Amendment that the period should be three days, but during the discussion, a suggestion came from hon. Members on this side of the House that we might compromise by adding the two and dividing by two and getting a total of five days. I am very glad that the Government have seen fit to take the advice which they were given.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "two" and to insert "three".
Again, I welcome the fact that the Government are following the lead which they received from the Opposition. So long as they are prepared to adopt that course they will not go very far wrong.
I know that the Solicitor-General had serious doubts about this when we considered the Amendment in the first place, during the proceedings in the Standing Committee. The figure was first put down as £500, but the hon. and learned Gentleman felt that was far too high. Then, following a little pressure exerted during the debate, he revealed that he was prepared to consider a revision. Of course, I could quote his exact words, but I do not want to take up time by so doing. They will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the Standing Committee.
From considering that the figure was far too high the hon. and learned Gentleman went to revision; he was prepared


to consider revision. Then he qualified the idea of revision by saying that the sum of £500 which we were suggesting was out of proportion in relation to other penalties on summary conviction. Then, finally, the course of the argument compelled him to say that he would reconsider the whole position. It almost seemed like the journey of St. Paul, which was referred to a few moments ago in the course of another discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman started at Ephesus, I hope that he has now reached Damascus and that he has been completely converted to the view which we advanced.
The hon. and learned Gentleman agrees, and so, I think, do the Government for whom he is the spokesman, that £250 is too low in present circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the sum of £500 which we suggested was too high, for the various reasons which I have outlined. So, once again, in seeking to get him to see our point of view, we have sought to compromise and fix what we regard as a reasonable sum in between. We suggest that that sum is £350. I think that figure meets every point which was put during the discussion in the Standing Committee and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I beg to second the Amendment.
I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I think it was recognised during the Committee stage discussions that this would have a serious effect in dealing with a case of defrauding, where a renter notifies an exhibitor of his intention to apply to register a film but does not attempt to register it.
As we discovered during the Committee stage discussions, the main point is that the Government have pursued a policy in this Bill of raising all the fees and lowering all the penalties. Where it is a case of the Board of Trade getting anything out of it, the figure has gone up. Where it is a case of penalties for quite serious offences, the figure has been left in the terms of 1938 values. That was shown to be completely absurd. As the Board of Trade has started of in a compromising mood this afternoon, I

hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): We discussed the question of penalties quite a lot during the Committee stage discussions both in relation to this Clause and a later Clause. Regarding this Clause, I did not undertake to revise the penalty provisions in the Bill generally. I said:
I would agree that as a general matter of principle the penalties ought to be reviewed in the light of the changing value of money.
I would remind the hon. Member for Glasgow Govan (Mr. Rankin) that the word was "review" and not "revise." I went on to say:
On the other hand, a £500 penalty on summary conviction is altogether out of line with what one finds in the rest of the law.
Finally, I said:
I have undertaken, if the Committee think it proper, to reconsider this matter before Report without giving any undertaking that the penalty should he increased…
Those words appear at the bottom of column 24 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rankin: It was those words which I had in mind. Perhaps I should have quoted them, but as I said, I did not wish to consume too much time. The Solicitor-General did say that he would reconsider this matter, and I felt that it was the weight of the argument which had driven him to that decision.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is any real misunderstanding about this, but I did not want it to be thought that I had given an undertaking to revise the penalties, but merely to review them generally. As I said, my summary was:
I have undertaken, if the Committee think it proper, to reconsider this matter before Report without giving any undertaking that the penalty should be increased and particularly. I hope, making it quite plain that I think £500 is excessive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B: 19th November, 1959. c. 22–24.]
The Committee was good enough to allow the matter to rest there, on the undertaking, as I said, that there should be a review—which I have, in fact, undertaken—of the penalty provisions of the Bill, and also in the light of other penalty provisions.
The hon. Gentleman, in addition to review, now offers me modestly a blinding flash of light to assist in our


deliberations. What I found when it came to review was this. In the first place, it is not the practice when amending legislation is prepared automatically to increase the penalties because of the decline in the value of money. Each penalty is reconsidered on its merits, and an increase is proposed only if there is reason to believe that, owing to the change in the value of money, the deterrent effect of the original penalty is inadequate.
Secondly, in the light of that, I considered the penalties under the previous legislation. There are 15 provisions which attract penalties, but it was apparent that only in respect of four of these 15 provisions has it been found necessary to prosecute. What is most significant of all is that, even in respect of those four categories, the courts have operated well within the maximum penalty; and, therefore, this indicates that, in the view of the courts, the deterrent effect of the penalty is still adequate, notwithstanding a change in the value of money.
As a result of that, it seemed to me that the maximum penalties under the Bill are right as they stand, with one exception, which we will come to on a later Amendment. So far as the penalty at present under consideration is concerned, it seemed to me that it was right at £250.
But there is another consideration, which I did not bring to the notice of the Committee, but which seems to me to be quite conclusive. I did tell the Standing Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, that we are to introduce regulations that will govern the payment of levy to newsreels. When we do that, we shall make it quite plain that if the film is unregistered the levy will not be attracted. That means that there will be a very much greater pecuniary sanction to non-registration than any fine that has so far been proposed. If companies fail to observe their obligation to register a film they will not qualify for their share of the levy, and that is likely to involve them in a loss of several thousands of pounds.
Under these circumstances, I hope the House will feel that I have honoured the undertaking which I gave to review, with

the best ability that I could command, the penalties in the Bill, and, particularly in view of that last consideration, that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Mrs. White: I still think that there are places in cinematograph films legislation where the penalties should be kept more in line with the present-day value of money. I appreciate the point put by the learned Solicitor-General about regulations made on the lines which he has been suggesting. One of our difficulties has been that so much is to be done by regulations that we have to take in good faith at this stage. Nevertheless, if regulations are made on the lines now proposed by the Solicitor-General, in this case the amount of the penalty, perhaps, is not of such significance.
We feel, I think quite rightly, that if we are having fresh legislation and the penalties have remained unchanged for very many years, it is only right to suggest that they should be brought a little more up to date. However, as the learned Solicitor-General has given some effect to the undertaking which he gave in Committee, I do not think that the point on this Clause is strong enough to press the matter, and possibly my hon. Friends might feel inclined to let it go by default.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(COMBINATION OF QUOTA PERIODS FOR PURPOSES OF S. 1 OF ACT OF 1948.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, to leave out "for" and to insert:
and the period during which it is so exhibited is or includes".
This is a drafting Amendment which is designed to meet some doubts that were expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) when we discussed Clause 4 in Committee. Those hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that I ventured to advise the Committee that, on my reading of the Clause, it was only, in any event, a minimum period which was laid down. The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman pressed me, if that were so, to make it


clear beyond any doubt at all. I under-look to reconsider the matter in that light before Report stage. It is in an attempt, and I hope a successful attempt, to meet that point that we have put down this Amendment.

Mrs. White: I am very glad indeed that the Solicitor-General has thought fit to make some amendment to what appeared to us to be the most obscure wording of the Clause. Even now, I must confess that it is not crystal clear to me. I have taken the advice of the trade, and particularly of the Exhibitors' Association, who are most closely concerned with this matter, and they tell me that it is now clear to them. That being so, I think we have met the object of the exercise. I have a note here from the secretary of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, in which he says:
The proposed Government Amendment to Clause 4 appears to us to be a very desirable one, as if the Clause is left in an inelastic form it could well defeat its own object.
In other words, if the Clause remains unamended, in the opinion of the exhibitors it will defeat its own object.
I think that we were more than justified in the fairly long discussion which we had in Committee in pressing upon the Government the need for some amendment to the wording of what seemed to us a most obscure sentence. Therefore, as that matter has been clarified in the eyes of the trade, and as they feel that we are now to have a more suitable and elastic form of words which meets their needs, I think that we should accept the Amendment to this Clause, and be thankful that we have made one little improvement in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(USE OF STUDIO FOR SOUND RECORDING.)

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out Clause 7.

Mr. Rankin: I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we could have some advice as to how we may proceed. The Amendment just moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) seeks to leave out Clause 7, but you will observe that my hon. Friend the

Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and I have also tabled an Amendment to the Clause—in page 6, line 37, leave out "or sound recordings made" and insert:
or sound dubbing or mixing made".
Assuming that we do not agree to leave out Clause 7, will that Amendment then come up for consideration, or should we take that Amendment first before deciding whether or not to leave out Clause 7?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member's Amendment can be discussed with this one.

Mrs. White: We are grateful to you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not sure whether the two Amendments could be discussed together.
The Amendment that I have just moved is, perhaps, drastic, but we put it down after consideration of what the Clause, as it now stands, really means. The whole point of the Clause is to extend the definition of "studio" contained in Section 44 of the 1938 Act to include the place in which sound recordings are made as well as the place in which photographs are taken. At first sight, this seems reasonable enough, but when we considered the matter rather more closely, and brought it up in Committee, it soon became apparent that it was by no means as simple as it appeared.
In the making of a film there are various stages at which sound recordings can be made. It is not merely the first direct impression; one has other processes that are called "dubbing", "mixing" and so on. In the Standing Committee, I inquired of the Parliamentary Secretary whether this extended definition of "studio" was intended to include all those other processes, because if so, it seemed to me that this was possibly carrying matters a little far, and might be extending the word "studio" to include processes that would normally take place, for example, in a laboratory.
I was assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was intended to be fully inclusive. I think that he was a little rash in that because, subsequently to this discussion in Committee, the trade interests concerned made representations both to hon. Members and through the usual channels to the Board of Trade. and obtained certain assurances from the Board of Trade that the Clause was


not intended to go as widely as it had seemed, in Committee, to be taken.
The film interests pointed out that if one took this as widely as it might be taken one could get oneself into every kind of difficulty. One might have, in the final mixture, sounds that were taken in the original studio, sounds that might have been taken in quite another place but which were so mixed or "married" or dubbed together—or whatever it is that is done in the later processes—as to make it almost impossible to disentangle one from t'other.
As a result of all these discussions, correspondence took place between the officials of the Board of Trade and certain of the trade associations. From this correspondence it appears that, far from being a really extended definition of "studio", the practical intended effect of the Clause is now so slight as to be, in our opinion, virtually negligible. Therefore, we cannot see why the Clause should be included at all.
It now appears that what is intended is this—and I think that I am entitled here to quote from a letter that was sent on 8th January to the secretary of the Federation of British Film Makers from the Board of Trade. The explanation given in the letter is that
the definition of a 'studio' in Section 44 of the 1938 Act"—
the letter referred, of course, to Clause 7:
is in two parts: the first part defines 'studio' as 'a building constructed or adapted for the purpose of making films therein'; the second part explains what is meant by the use of such a studio in the making of a film; and it is in this second part of the definition that the new words are included. A film studio will now be regarded as being used in the making of a film if the film's sound recordings were made in the studio, but"—
and this is the really important part:
if the sound recordings were made, for example, in a broadcasting or television studio or in a theatre, they would not be covered by the Clause. This Clause is, therefore, far less restrictive than I think some people had imagined when they first read it.
Indeed, it is, because what we are now saying to a producer by this Clause is, "If you record your sound track in the same place as that in which you take your photographs, or in a place that is normally used for taking photographs, that counts as a studio, and if

it happens to be in a foreign country, that part of the sound track that is taken in a studio will be subject to the restrictions that are included in the principal Acts if you then wish to have the film registered as a British film."
In other words, there will be limitation on the amount of sound track that can be recorded in this way, but if the producer remains at virtually the same latitude and longitude, merely moves down the road and takes his sound recording under a different roof, goes to a theatre, or a parish hall, or a broadcasting studio—or even to a television studio—but not to something already defined, from its photographic uses, as film studio, then, apparently, these restrictions are not to apply, and the sound track will be exempt from restriction because it was not taken in a film studio.
If that is so, it seems to me quite ridiculous to have the provision at all, because all that is being done is to insert an inconvenience for the producer of the film without having any effect of any consequence or substance on the registration of the film as a British film. The producer is being told, "You cannot take your sound track here, even though it happens to be convenient. You must move out of this building, but you can move into another building, although it may be in the same country, or even in the same town. If you move into another building, you move yourself outside the restrictions of cinematograph films legislation, and you will be outside the net."
This seems to be legislation without point or purpose. If that interpretation sent by the Department to the Federation of British Film Makers—and, presumably, to other organisations that may have made inquiries—is the correct interpretation of the Clause, we feel that the Clause should be deleted because, by it, one is simply putting to inconvenience, without real significance, the maker of the film.
I see that my hon. Friends have tried by their Amendment to put into legislative form the Parliamentary Secretary's expression of opinion in Committee. Had that expression of opinion in the least coincided with the correspondence of the Department's officials with outside organisations there might have been some point in this, but, in the light of


the explanations given subsequently to the Committee stage, I think that deletion of the whole Clause is the only intelligent thing that the House can now do.
I hope, therefore, that we shall hear quite distinctly from the Ministers concerned whether they stand by the explanation which has been sent out and, if so, why then they think the Clause is at all necessary. If, on the other hand, they do not stand by that explanation but continue in the opinion expressed in Committee we shall, of course, have to consider the matter further.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) second the Amendment?

Mr. Rankin: As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has so clearly indicated, we are here placed in a little difficulty. Of course, I naturally take this opportunity of moving my Amendment, but it is obvious that the Government ought to have made a statement before I moved it, since as my hon. Friend has just said, the Amendment is an attempt to try to improve a Clause which during the course of the Committee proceedings the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to indicate required improving. As an aftermath of the Committee stage it would seem that some change has taken place in the Government's viewpoint. My own opinion is that the Clause ought to be deleted. Although I am moving the Amendment I want to make it clear that I think it would be better if Clause 7 were deleted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Just to make things clear perhaps, I should point out that the hon. Member is seconding the Amendment to leave out the Clause.

Mr. Rankin: I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought you had called upon me to move my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may make reference to the Amendment standing in his name on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Rankin: Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the only reference I may make to my Amendment is in process of seconding the Amendment to delete the Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There will be only one discussion on these two Amendments and only one speech from the hon. Member.

Mr. Rankin: That, of course, enhances my difficulty. In these circumstances I usually look for some help and co-operation from the Chair.
I have here an Amendment which is completely in order, but evidently under the procedure which has been adopted I shall be prevented from speaking particularly to that Amendment. May I say that while I take the opportunity of seconding the Amendment for the deletion of the Clause I wish in doing so to deal particularly with the arguments which I would have put forward in support of the Amendment standing in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).
I believe that the brief reasons that I shall advance will contribute to what I hope will be the Government's final decision to excise the Clause from the Bill. It is not a helpful Clause in my view, and that view has been reinforced by my contacts with persons on the productive side of the industry. As the Clause stands it creates for them very considerable problems of interpretation. We and they are not quarrelling with the Government's intentions. We think that their intentions are quite good, but, of course, the trouble about intentions is that if one follows them too closely one may land in a somewhat undesirable place. It is because we have some consideration for the Government that we wish to help them to avert that fearful fate. Clarification, therefore, is absolutely necessary however good the intentions may be.
5.15 p.m.
As I have said, there would first of all be considerable problems of interpretation of the Clause by the producers, and the Clause would certainly add to the difficulties of those foreign producers who through their British affiliates are making films that are now capable of qualifying for the British quota under the terms of Section 25 of the 1948 Act which lays it down that the film must be made in Her Majesty's Dominions.
As an indication of the difficulties that would follow from the Clause at is stands there is the question of sound recordings.


My hon. Friend has instanced them. There are three different phases in the process of sound recording and each of those phases could be regarded under the Clause as a sound recording. Are the Government going to tell us which is the phase—the first, the second or the third—in which the re-recording is finally married to the photographic film which appears in the cinemas? Which one is the sound recording? Either of the other two phases could be part and parcel of what might be regarded as sound recording under the Clause. If that were the case then, of course, the film would not qualify for British quota because part of the recording might be made in any part of the world. It could be made in Honolulu. That is something which is happening quite frequently nowadays.
The whole trouble is that we are here seeking to take the 1938 Act—particularly that Act—despite its Amendments, and adapt it by other Amendments to fit an industry which has fundamentally changed its techniques during the twenty-two years since that Act was first brought into force. Our Amendments are not helping it. That is the problem which, to a large extent, is facing us in the Clause at the moment. As I have said, there has been a tremendous change in the techniques of production since then and even since the 1948 Act was passed. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say whether all recordings that go to make up a sound track of a film such as dialogue, including post-synching with dubbing or mixing, are to be regarded as sound recordings. If that be the case, what is the position when an actor's voice is recorded in a British studio and set to the background of music which has been recorded in a foreign studio? There is nothing unusual in that happening.
With such a situation, it is the feeling of many people who want to see this industry progress as easily and smoothly as possible that we should try to resolve these problems. In the Amendment which I am moving we ask that the Government should delete this reference to sound recording. If that is not done, they must clarify the Clause. We are seeking to establish that clarification, strangely enough, by deleting the Clause or, alternatively, by asking for the

acceptance of my Amendment. We are trying to bring the law up to date, in keeping with the advanced techniques which I have mentioned.
We have a current example. Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have seen the film, "The Swiss Family Robinson". This illustrates circumstances in which it is more practical and economic to record an actor's voice for post-synching in a foreign studio, because more and more it is becoming a practice to make as much recording of dialogue and effects as possible while on location. One purpose of that is to cut out the very heavy costs which are associated with studio work. Today we have an actor carrying on his film work and at the same time doing the recording. This Clause will make that practice more difficult because of its lack of clarity. The Clause does not make absolutely clear what, perhaps, the Government intend to do, and if they will not agree to delete it altogether they should at least accept the Amendment which I have moved which would delete the words "or sound recordings made" and insert the words
or sound dubbing or mixing made".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has not moved the Amendment in line 37. Indeed, it has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for a separate vote.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I am afraid that I did not gather the effect of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I omitted formally to second the deletion of the Clause, I will do so now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only one Amendment can be moved at a time. The Amendment now before the House proposes to leave out Clause 7. The Amendment in line 37, in the hon. Member's name, has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for a separate vote, but it can be discussed together with the Amendment in line 32.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I am sorry if the remarks which I made in Committee on this subject, which I re-read while the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was speaking, were somewhat misleading.

Mr. Rankin: Whose remarks were misleading?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member alleged that my remarks were misleading.


The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has moved an Amendment to leave out the Clause, because she alleges that its effect is negligible and merely causes inconvenience to the film industry. The suggestion that the definition of the use of a studio should be extended to include the recording of sound was put forward by the Federation of Film Unions. It seemed entirely logical and commanded the ready acceptance of the Cinematograph Films Council. The cost of the sound recording of a film will vary considerably but will represent a substantial proportion of the total cost, and it seemed reasonable that if the use of foreign studios for taking photographs were limited where British films were concerned, then their use for making sound records should also be limited.
I admit that there seems to be some difference of opinion within the ranks of the British film industry, and among the producers in particular, about the importance of preserving this Clause, but it is apparent that some studio companies share with the film unions the fear that sound recordings may tend to be made abroad instead of in British studios if this safeguard is removed by the deletion of the Clause.
The Clause as it stands will prevent any tendency for British films shot on location abroad to have their sound tracks made in a foreign studio, but it would not prevent the use of buildings other than bona fide film studios, as the hon. Lady pointed out, for recording individual sound tracks of music, dialogue or sound effects. That answers he hon. Member for Govan. The producer will be left free to collect, as he does at present, a variety of individual sound tracks obtained in any way other than by a recording in a film studio which he can then dub on to his film in a British studio. Since the prohibition of the use of foreign film studios for final dubbing or mixing is secured by Clause 7, failure to provide for this would frustrate the intention that British studio facilities should be used as far as possible for British films, provided that it does not impede genuine location work. There therefore seems to be no occasion to accept the Amendment.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady implies that if a British film is shot on

location overseas there is no need to prevent the various sound tracks from being made in a foreign studio or later—and more important—to prevent the final dubbing or post-synchronisation work from being done in a foreign studio. I know that some of the owners of British studios would not agree with her views on this subject. We must therefore ask for the Amendment to be rejected.
May I now say a few words about the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan? The effect of this Amendment would be to allow a producer to use a foreign film studio for the purposes of making a single sound track but to prevent him from using that studio for carrying out the final dubbing or mixing of the various sound tracks which together go to make up the final sound recording on a film. There are usually at least three separate tracks—the dialogue track, the background noises and the music—but often there are many more which are finally mixed on to the final edition of the film. It will be seen, therefore, that the Amendment is less restrictive than the present Clause.
The difficulty about accepting it is that of defining the terms "dubbing" and "mixing". These are fairly well-recognised terms in the trade but I am advised that their definition in a way which would have legal effect would present very great difficulties. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: Surely that is a weak reply. "Mixing" and "dubbing" are quite well-known terms in the cinematograph trade. I am not making a speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but interrupting the Parliamentary Secretary, who gave way to me. I am putting the point to him as briefly as I can. "Mixing" and "dubbing" are both very common terms which are quite well known in the industry. It is appalling that the Parliamentary Secretary should slip away on the excuse that he cannot accept my Amendment, which he seems to fancy, because he cannot define these two well-known terms. Will he think about it again?

Mr. Rodgers: I meant that I prefer the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend


the Member for Flint, East. That is as far as my preference goes. I should like to reject both the Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.—(PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS OF BRITISH FILMS.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, to leave out Clause 8.
I am sorry to butt into this discussion, which, up to now, has been exclusively restricted to Members of the Standing Committee. I should like to explain that I did not on this occasion "dodge the column" but, unfortunately, I could not catch Mr. Speaker's eye on the Second Reading. I had to take part in a debate at London University and I was not able to take part in the deliberations of the Committee.

Mr. Rankin: We accept that.

Mr. Shepherd: I nevertheless followed with close interest the deliberations of the Committee, and particularly the discussion on Clause 8. which I now seek to delete.
Let me say at once that I have no objection to those who try to secure for our own nationals some form of protection within reasonable terms and to those who have a very proper regard for the national characteristics of our films. I feel, however, that the proposals in Clause 8 are distinctly contrary to the best interest of the industry and to the growing tendencies in the industry.
May I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and her hon. Friends, without, I hope, embarrassment to them, that I much admire the stand which they took during the Committee stage, because it is quite obvious that the more restrictive view of the trade unions might well be to welcome a Clause such as this. In putting forward the broader view, which, in my opinion, serves the wider interest of the industry, they were very courageous and I should like to pay my tribute to her and her hon. Friends.
Let me tell the House briefly why I think that this Clause ought to go. First, I think that Government meddling

with an industry is nearly always bad, and the longer I live the less happy I am about it. This is a meddlesome Clause. It is particularly objectionable because it is a Clause which it is impossible strictly to interpret and implement.
I read the discussion in Committee about the various meanings of the words "producer" and "director". Those of us who take an interest in the industry know that these terms are very loose indeed. We know of occasions when films have been controlled by people who have neither of these titles. Even in this country there was a time when British Lion Films production was controlled by the late Sir Alexander Korda, who was only a production adviser to the company and who had no official title as director or producer.
I object on the second ground that the Clause is impracticable of application. I should not be opposed to it today simply on those grounds, although I believe that they are in themselves substantial. I am opposed to it because it is contrary to the best interests of British film production. It seems to me incongruous that the Government should put in the Bill two Clauses, one Clause 10 and the other Clause 8, when Clause 8 would undoubtedly restrict the extent of the international co-operation which we shall. I hope, stimulate by Clause 10.
International co-operation in filmmaking is essential for the welfare of the industry in this country. If we had a great number of wholly British films being produced and could not find a reasonably ready market for them in this country, there might be some case for restriction, but the truth is that we are short of British first-feature films and that there are many exhibitors outside the main circuit who cannot get them for the first round. Therefore, anything which tends to restrict the volume of British films being produced must be wholly harmful to our industry.
There are one or two other objections which I raise to this restrictive Clause. During the last five or six years there has been a greater tendency towards films being produced in co-operation with other countries. I have prophesied this tendency in the House more than


once, and it certainly has come to pass. This means that there are co-operative efforts between British, American, German and other producers to produce films in this country. People come to this country to produce films because we provide a convenient background for certain types of films which may themselves have a European background, and because some of those people find that working in our studios is more agreeable than working in their own. There are other reasons including, no doubt, the attractions of the benefits of the quota and the levy. Whatever the reasons are, they come here.
I want to see—and I hope that the House wants to see—more people coming to this country to make films and this country becoming a great international centre of film production. If we do not achieve that we are in trouble, because we must admit frankly that, although we can turn out some good films which sometimes have international success, in the main they have only a limited national success. If we are to have films which will make an impact on the world, we need international co-operation to produce them because we cannot ourselves sustain the cost involved. This is not only a one-way traffic. We must not forget that many of our producers and directors go to other countries.
Moreover, it is very important that we get international co-operation so that we can get our foot in the American film door. Although we made about £1 million last year from showing films in the dollar area, we do not, by and large, get circuit bookings for our films in the United States because our product is unfamiliar. Anglo-American production can get our foot in the American door. This we want to encourage and not discourage it by legislation such as that proposed in Clause 8. Despite the intentions which may have been good, this is a wholly harmful Clause to the British film industry as it is at present set up and as we can see the course of its progress over the next four or five years. I am, therefore, most anxious that the Government should delete it.
I know that the Clause originally proposed by the British Film Producers Association, and I think that some misguided people in that body pressed it to take that view. It was two years ago

that it started discussing this matter. It has now come to the view that this would be a harmful Clause and it has—I understand from a notice put out today—withdrawn its support for it. I hope that evidence by the only body to my knowledge which was anxious to secure this Clause will induce the Government to delete it.
I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has put his name on the Notice Paper, because I know that he is in close contact with the trade union side and it is encouraging to see the hon. Gentleman associating himself with the deletion of this Clause.
I have put my case as briefly as possible, because I hope that there will be ready acceptance. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to influence the Government to delete the Clause. Whilst it may have had some intention to benefit various people in this country, it must be necessarily harmful to British film production.

Mrs. White: I beg to second the Amendment.
As we made clear in Committee, several of my hon. Friends and myself were concerned lest the Clause should prove unduly restrictive in practice. I wish to make it clear that there are a number of people on the trade union side of industry who would still like the Clause to be included in the Bill.
It is always a matter of great regret on our side of the House if we find ourselves not in complete accord with our colleagues in the trade unions but, as we made clear at earlier stages, we felt that on the whole the apprehensions which they understandably have about the undue preponderance of foreign, and, in particular, American, producers or directors in the British film industry were possibly not well founded and that, even if they were, they could reasonably be met by other non-statutory arrangements.
That is the point of suggesting that the Clause should be deleted. It is certainly not because any of us wish to see British producers or directors displaced by foreign producers or directors. On the contrary, we wish to give every possible encouragement to the British industry and we should like to see as many British films as possible produced and directed by British subjects.


We recognise that in the film industry a very large measure of co-production is already taking place, more particularly with United States interests and that, as regards employment, the British film industry has very much benefited by the injection of capital from the United States, some of it under the provisions of what is usually called the Johnson Agreement, whilst other capital has been brought in independently of that. This procedure has increased a good deal in the last year or two, which is no doubt the reason why, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, the British Film Producers Association yesterday issued its opinion saying that it agreed that the position is different now from a few years ago when it supported this rather restrictive Clause.
If we were left with no protection and there was any serious danger of large numbers of British films being produced or directed by non-British subjects we should he very cautious indeed. However, there is a line of defence which can be effectively employed and in a much more flexible way than by statutory provision. I refer to the agreement, to which the Minister of Labour is party, made between the unions in this country and the Motion Picture Export Association of America concerning the number of producers or directors who may be allowed to work on films to be registered as British films in any one year.
I understand that there is a quota arrangement providing that a total of 12 producers or directors may be so employed in any one year and that the quota has never been reached. In any case, we are probably unwise to legislate in the House of Commons so specifically as the Clause is now drafted. It is better in such matters to rely on an existing line of defence for our interests, because that is more informal. It can be changed as circumstances change much more easily than a statutory provision.
Now that both the film producers' associations have agreed to the deletion, we should be wise to say to the other members of the industry that, while we fully appreciate their views, we think that they have in their own hands a reasonable weapon of defence and that it is better, on the whole, to rely on that than to try to embody in Statute form a provision

which might not be in the best interests of the industry or its own members. I hope very much that, since our discussions in Committee, reinforced by the views by the British Film Producers Association and the Federation of British Film Makers, the Government will now feel that the Clause is not necessary and that they can proceed with the Bill without it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I make the Government's intentions clear right away. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, the origin of the Clause was the strong opposition felt two or three years ago by many British producers to the extent of American participation in British films. It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that the British Film Producers Association has changed its view on this and no longer presses for such protection as it thought Clause 8 provided.
In Committee, Members on both sides were opposed to the Clause. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) were all opposed to the Clause. Objections were raised to it mainly on three grounds. First, many Members felt that the Clause was too restrictive and as originally drafted would catch choreographers, musical directors and persons in charge of individual scenes. We tried to overcome that objection by accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady.
Secondly, there was a feeling that the Clause as drafted would catch an American financial controller exercising only a remote and financial control. The Government accepted the validity of this argument and promised to introduce an Amendment on Report which would exclude such a controller from the operation of the Clause. However, there was a much wider objection to the Clause. The hon. Member for Flint. East expressed grave doubts about this Clause altogether. She suggested that it might inhibit the American financing of some British films, and that it was


anomalous that, while Clause 10 would encourage co-productions between British and other European countries, Anglo-American co-operation would be impeded by Clause 8.
In addition, the hon. Member for Govan drew attention to the Ministry of Labour permits controlling the employment of foreign directors and producers, to which the hon. Lady referred. The agreement is between the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and the Motion Picture Export Association governing the number of applications to be made to the Ministry of Labour for permits for foreign producers and directors. There is a similar agreement with the British Film Producers Association.
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that, rather than preserve the wording of Clause 8, it would be better to rely on the agreement and permits through the Ministry of Labour. This is wise, because the number of applications to the Ministry for permits for foreign producers and directors has in no year reached the limits laid down in the 1957 agreement between the A.C.T.T. and the M.P.E.A. The same position is true of the agreement subscribed by the B.F.P.A.
In these circumstances, the case for taking action under the quota legislation to deal with the matter, over and above the system of control on the employment of United States producers and directors exerted by the Ministry of Labour permit system, is clearly open to question, and the Minister of Labour takes the view that it is unnecessary. Moreover, it was intended in any event that Clause 8 would bite only on a few cases, but these are the cases where there might well be particular reasons for making special arrangements for the employment of foreign producers and directors, for example in the case of an "epic" film, as pointed out in Committee by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). Moreover, the Clause carries the further disadvantages mentioned by other hon. Members in Committee.
The conclusion that the Government have reached, therefore, is that the most advantageous course would be to continue to rely on the existing Ministry of Labour's permit system, and accordingly my hon. Friend's Amendment to

delete Clause 8 is acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Rankin: Perhaps, at this stage, we might ask: who is kidding who? Not one reason has been given so far that was not advanced in Committee. There has been talk of the danger of imperilling good business. I gave the figure of £25 million of investment in this country by American films over the last ten years. That was all known then. The changes of techniques, and so on, were all known during the Committee stage.
The Government were perfectly familiar with the case. They knew that the Board of Trade had clashed with the Ministry of Labour. There was a quarrel going on behind the scenes, because the Ministry of Labour was afraid that the Board of Trade's incorporation of Clause 8 would imperil the work it was doing This was all known. In response to the appeal which emanated from both sides of the Committee, the Government then might, and should, have withdrawn the Clause.
Now out comes the word from the big bosses. On 26th January, 1960, the day we return from the Christmas Recess, we receive our instructions—at least, the instructions to the Government Front Bench. This is the sentence which attracts me:
Since those views were submitted two years ago"—
These people are in the industry and the Government were evidently acting on their views, submitted two years ago; it is shocking—
world conditions of film production have changed substantially".
We have been saying that this afternoon and all through the passage of the Bill. Now they have awakened to the fact that views submitted two years ago are entirely out of date. That is a shocking comment on the state of British film production. It is, also, a disturbing indication of the liaison which is established between Government sources and the industry.
The Government now offer to withdraw Clause 8. Are they withdrawing it on the instructions received today? Everyone in the House knows that what has happened is that top-level business has flowed into Pinewood during recent weeks. Since the Committee stage


finished, even while it was in process, more orders have flowed into Pinewood. Pinewood will be busy for the next eighteen months. There is no worry. American contracts are coming over. Therefore, the big boss of B.F.P.A., which perhaps is the big boss of the Government, said that Clause 8 should be deleted. Today, the Clause is being withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(INCLUSION OF STUDIO OR MAKER IN CREDIT TITLES.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, at the end to insert:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, where the name of a place (with or without other particulars) is included as mentioned therein but not the name of the country in which that place is, the inclusion shall not be deemed to be the inclusion of an address.
This Amendment fulfils the undertaking which I gave in Committee that the Government would introduce an Amendment on Report so that the name of the country in which a film was made should be included in the credit titles. The suggestion was, I think, first put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) in the course of the debate as an alternative to the Amendment which he actually put down, and which we then resisted, that the credit titles should include the caption, "This is a British Film".
I undertook also to consider whether the Amendment to be laid should stipulate that, where a film was made in England, Scotland or Wales, the term "Great Britain" should be used. This was in reply to a suggestion from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), supported, I think, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash. It was pointed out that there were no film studios in Scotland but that the chief participant in a film might well be a Scottish actor. Accordingly, the hon. Member for Govan asked that the proper name of the entity should be used, namely, Great Britain.
It would necessitate a rather cumbersome Amendment to provide that where the name of the country concerned was

England, Scotland or Wales the term "Great Britain" should be used. Moreover, it seems to me that it would be wrong to take legislative action to prevent the use of the term "England" since for particular films that might be the most appropriate term, just as it would seem wrong to prevent the use of the terms "Scotland" or "Wales" where they might be the most appropriate.
The Amendment, therefore, makes no reference to "Great Britain" but stipulates only that the name of the country should be given. This will leave it open to the film makers to use their own judgment and to use the term "Great Britain" should they so desire, or "England", "Scotland" or "Wales".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(FILMS USING OLD MATERIAL.)

Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "sound or both" and to insert:
or sound when combined with visual images".
I have been refreshing my memory of the proceedings on this matter in Committee. This is one of the few points which we did not discuss adequately. The discussions on several of the points we took up may have seemed, perhaps, a little protracted, but this particular matter in Clause 11 of adding a reference to sound was, I am afraid, dealt with in a very perfunctory way by both sides of the Committee. Consequently, we have landed ourselves in considerable difficulties.
What appeared to be a sensible and simple addition to the Bill, that, in dealing with old films parts of which were then used in a new film, one should include sound as well as pictures. is, in fact, very far from simple. On the face of it, it is only ordinary justice that, if one is trying to protect one form of production, namely, pictures, one should at the same time extend the protection to sound; but, no sooner had the trade discovered what we were doing than we were bombarded with protests, as, no doubt, the Board of Trade was, too, saying that we were cutting across common practice in the trade. Where sound is concerned, a certain proportion, at least, of the sound track is very frequently


derived from old material, and perfectly properly so derived. In other words, it is much more general, and regarded as perfectly good production practice, to use library material for one's sound than it is to use such material for one's pictures.
It was put to us that the makers of short films in particular would be almost driven out of business if the Clause were left in its proposed form and that even long films might be adversely affected if people were told that, in order to rank as British films, not more than 10 per cent. of old sound material could be used.
I have a letter here from a person well known in the film word. After mentioning some of the possible difficulties facing the makers of short films, he says:
As far as long films are concerned, I can see all sorts of difficulties in establishing the exact percentage of library material included in the track".
He is, of course, referring to the sound track only. He mentions a film involving pictures of the sea and says:
As this is a story of the sea and involves a tremendous amount of model work"—
that is to say, the ship would be a model only—
I can foresee that in the final re-recording the background sea noise alone might account for considerably more than 10 per cent. of the sound track of the film. Furthermore, the sea noises track might be a combination of more than one track mixed to give an overall effect. For example, the dubbing editor would make up a loop of, say, approximately 40 ft. of actual sea noises and repeat these ad infinitum according to the requirements of the picture and to that at suitable points add other loops covering wind noises, creaking noises, seagull noises, etc.".
He then points out that there are other circumstances in which a very considerable amount of library sound material might be required. He suggests, for example, that, if one is making a period picture out of doors on location, modern noises might intrude upon a scene nominally taking place before the advent of the motor car or train and, therefore, one could not just take the sound as one went along. One might be obliged to use library material for the sound track.
Similarly, my correspondent suggests that, on most location shooting, the intrusion of noises which are not really sympathetic with the effect one is trying to reach means that, frequently, as much

as 50 per cent. of the recording made has to be scrapped later on.
It seems, therefore, that, in our rather casual acceptance of the notion that one could deal with sound on the same footing as pictures, we were misleading ourselves. It is quite clear that, by including sound, we should raise difficulties which would be quite outside the intenion behind the Bill and quite impossible to deal with in practice.
How is one to deal with the matter? There has been correspondence between the Board of Trade and the interests concerned and, again, we have seen a letter which puts an interpretation upon the Clause which, most emphatically, is not obvious from a reading of the Clause itself. As I understand it, the interpretation which has been put by the officials of the Board of Trade to the film interests suggests that we need not be concerned about the inclusion of sound in this Clause because we are dealing with films, and by definition in Clause 3 of the Bill a film must include visual images. Therefore, any sound on a track which did not include visual images is not covered by the words of the Clause.
I submit that for anybody reading the Clause it is really quite impossible to follow that interpretation. The Clause seems quite clearly to refer to the possibility of sound being on its own. Yet we are told that that is not so; sound must be combined with visual images if it is to be included in our interpretation of the Clause. If that is so, surely it is to the advantage of everyone that it should be stated in so many words. I cannot believe that anyone could unaided possibly reach the conclusion that "sound" in the Clause as drafted could possibly mean only sound in combination with visual images. Whether or not that is the most desirable way of dealing with it is another matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) have tried to suggest that one could do it in a slightly different way, by saying "but excluding sound effects", in other words, by excluding the sort of material to which I have referred, seagull noises, creaking noises, sea noises, and so forth. I think however, that we might land ourselves in difficulties in defining "sound effects". One


might say, "anything other than the human voice", but then one might have crowd scenes, the crowds crying, "Rhubarb", or whatever it is they are told to shout, and that might legitimately be a sound effect in certain circumstances although it included the human voice.
Therefore, I am inclined to think that the definition of "sound effect" would make it difficult to deal with the matter in that way. That is why we suggest that, if what is really intended is only that the part of the sound track which is one with a series of visual images is all we are dealing with, we should say so. I recognise that it is not easy in some circumstances to reach a form of words to cover exactly what is intended, but it is not satisfactory to let the Bill leave the House in a form in which no one, on a normal interpretation of English, could possibly find the meaning which has been put upon the words in what has been said to the film industry.
I hope, therefore, that we can clarify this point and that we shall not let the Clause go without making quite plain to the industry in words in the Bill, lest there should ever be a question of interpretation before the courts, what it is that we propose to do.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that, with this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), in page 7, line 30, at end insert "but excluding sound effects".

Mr. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall not help to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily, but I wish to ask a question. That is my principal reason for taking advantage of the opportunity to second the Amendment.
The whole difficulty about this Clause and what has really provoked the Amendments which have been tabled arises from the use which has to be made of library material, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) explained. There is also the feeling that the Clause

is not quite as innocuous as it might appear. As Clause 3 defines it, a film is
any record, however made, of a sequence of visual images".
So that if a piece of tape does not include visual images, it is not a film for the purposes of Clause 3. We are clear so far. It is unfortunate that in Clauses 7 and 11, there is, and there will be, so much dubiety as to the interpretation which can be placed upon these words in the Clause.
In view of what I have said, I should like to ask, therefore, whether a film maker can use what library material he likes for a sound track provided he takes it from a sound track which does not include visual images.

Mr. Shepherd: I should like to say a word to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade about the Clause. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) was, I think, right in saying that it does not—immediately, at least—convey the impression which we understand it to be intended to convey. That, however, is a feat which lawyers achieve on many occasions and we should not, perhaps, display too much concern about it.
What I want to say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench is somewhat more far-reaching. Is the Clause really necessary at all? I cannot conceive of circumstances, and I am sure that my hon. Friends cannot—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be going wide of the Amendment. The Question is not, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". We are discussing an Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. Shepherd: Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I may postpone my remarks until we reach the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on Report.

Mr. Shepherd: I am, therefore, in difficulty. I have to abbreviate what were intended to be my brief remarks by asking my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to look at the Clause to see


whether some more drastic Amendment cannot be conceived for consideration in another place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss any other Amendments except those on the Notice Paper.

The Solicitor-General: Although we can discuss only the Amendment, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that we have looked carefully at the Clause, both in Committee and subsequently. To deal with the Amendment, I should remind the House of the genesis of the words in brackets which it is now sought to amend. They arose from an Amendment which I moved to give effect to an Amendment put down by an hon. Member opposite, I think by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). The purpose was to make it clear, as, we thought, was already clear, that sound was included, that if the visual images were accompanied by a sound track they would be caught by the Clause.
I said that
where part of a new film contains sound recordings taken from an old film that part is derived from the old film.
That was the point of moving the Amendment. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said:
We are perfectly happy with that explanation of course. Our purpose was to reassure some of those in the industry, including some musicians, that this Clause was intended to include sound."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th November, 1959; c. 141–2.]
It is clear from that that the hon. Lady has since changed her mind. She is entitled to do that. In the first place, it is her prerogative as an hon. lady Member of the House to change her mind. Secondly, she has today produced cogent arguments in favour of the fact that, at least, the sound unaccompanied by visual image ought not to be caught. That was the view put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who asked whether a film maker can take from a library a sound track and use it provided that it does not include visual images. There is no doubt that the answer is "Yes".
6.15 p.m.
Our view of the Clause is that which was put forward in the letter which the hon. Lady read. In other words, a film

is a succession of visual images. It is so defined in Clause 3, although it is fair to say that in Clause 3 it is only so defined for the purpose of that Clause. In any case, however, the common sense of the matter is that a film is a succession of visual images. Since the material must be derived from a film, it is our view that sound unaccompanied by visual image would not be caught by the Clause.
Having said that, I see the force, nevertheless, of the point made by the hon. Lady that the matter is not entirely clear. Part of our argument refers back to a definition in Clause 3 which, it is true, is only for the purpose of that Clause. On the other hand, the alternatives that are now put forward on the Amendment Paper do not seem to me to be very satisfactory.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan in line 30 would make the Clause read:
Where parts of a film to be registered as a British film are derived (whether as regards photographs, sound or both but excluding sound effects) from—
That clearly draws a distinction between sound and sound effects. I do not believe that that is at all what the hon. Member intends, nor do I think that it is a distinction that could be drawn.

Mr. Rankin: I hope the Solicitor-General will appreciate that I was doing my best. When a back bencher tries to put forward an Amendment for the kind of problem dealt with in the Clause, he is faced with a great many difficulties. That was the best form of words I could produce.

The Solicitor-General: I hope the hon. Member will not think I am criticising him. It has been the experience of all of us when trying to draw Amendments that they do not measure up to the standard that the draftsman, with his resources and experience, contributes in these days. That, however, would be the effect of the Amendment. In other words, although I understand clearly what the hon. Member intends, it would produce great difficulties in interpretation.
The hon. Lady's Amendment also seems to me to be technically defective. It is important to get the drafting right


if we can, because, as I said in Committee, it is intended that the Bill should lead to consolidation of the law relating to cinematograph films. The trouble with the hon. Lady's Amendment is that it would make the Clause read:
as regards photographs or sound when combined with visual images.
That would produce a false antithesis which we do not wish to have in the Clause. What we are concerned with here is excluding sound. Therefore, from a purely drafting viewpoint it is not very satisfactory to mention sound.
I was not clear what the purpose of the Amendment was when it was put down, because, as I ventured to point out, it is the direct contrary to the view expressed in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. If I and my hon. Friend had appreciated it in time, we would have tabled an Amendment to meet the point of the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman.
I have, however, prepared a manuscript Amendment which, Mr. Speaker, you might be willing to allow to be put to the House even at this stage, provided the hon. Lady withdraws her Amendment. Perhaps I may read it so that the House can see whether it meets the point. It is, in page 7, line 30, to leave out from "derived" to the end of the line and to insert
as regards the photographs comprised therein
The Clause would then read:
Where parts of a film to be registered as a British film are derived as regards the photographs comprised therein from (a) a registered film; or (b) any film …
and so on. I think that that would meet completely the point which the hon. Lady and hon. Member have in mind. It would be preferable from our point of view as a matter of drafting. If the hon. Lady would withdraw her Amendment and you, Sir, would accept the manuscript Amendment, I hope that we might agree on this matter.

Mrs. White: Is the hon. and learned Member saying that this form of words omits any reference whatsoever to sound and that he does not stand by what he said originally?

The Solicitor-General: We are not referring to sound at all in words. Of

course, we are concerned with sound if it accompanies the visual image, but we are concerned about the photograph. If the photograph has a sound track attached to it, it will be caught by the Clause, but the sound track alone is not caught and we do not find it necessary to mention it.

Mr. Rankin: The question which I put and to which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave an affirmative answer has now become almost unnecessary.

Mrs. White: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 30, to leave out from "derived" to end of the line and insert:
as regards the photographs comprised therein"—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 38, to leave out from "Council" to the end of line 40.
This is a consequential Amendment on an Amendment which was made in Committee. In Committee, we added paragraph 19 to Part II of the Second Schedule. Paragraph 19 amends Section 3 (6) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, so that any British film which is not registered as an exhibitor's quota film must be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 1 of the 1948 Act. In other words, it has precisely the same effect in a more general way than the words which it is proposed to leave out from Clause 11.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(AMENDMENT OF REGISTER, AND REGISTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE PARTICULARS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, at the end to insert:
(5) Where a title, playing time or other particular of any film has been recorded in the register in addition to or in substitution for another, no renter shall, while section one of the Act of 1948 is in force, procure the giving by an exhibitor (whether for a consideration or not, and whether orally or in writing) of an undertaking which, if legally binding, would impose on the exhibitor an obligation, either actual or contingent, to take delivery of the film, unless the renter has supplied to the exhibitor a statement in writing setting out all the titles, playing times, and other particulars which have ever been so recorded in respect


of the film; and if any renter procures an undertaking in contravention of this subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
The House will recollect that Clause 12 provides for the amendment of the register and the registration of alternative particulars in respect of a film or versions of a film. The object of the Amendment is to protect an exhibitor who might be persuaded by a renter to accept a film which he would have refused if he had known that it was no more than a different version of some other registered film.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) moved a similar Amendment in Committee, which we accepted in principal subject to redrafting. The hon. Member's Amendment differed from this one in only one respect. The hon. Member's Amendment made the acceptance as well as the procuring of an undertaking an offence. We feel that it would be inappropriate to provide that the acceptance by a renter of an undertaking which is freely given by an exhibitor should be an offence; but we accept the force of the hon. Member's Amendment, that any renter who persuades an exhibitor to accept a film virtually by suppressing the fact that it is an alternative version, a re-vamping of an old film, should be made liable.
The other point which we discussed in Committee was the maximum penalty. The hon. Member's Amendment proposed a maximum of £100, and I ventured to suggest that that was too high. I twitted the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) a moment ago with having changed her mind, and it is only right that I should say that, on reconsideration, we have come to the conclusion that the figure suggested by the hon. Member was right and not too high. The reason is that this is getting very close to fraud. It is a definite misleading of the exhibitor by the renter. On reconsideration, we felt that the offences could be more aptly compared with the offences under Clause 13, which concerns the use of an unregistered title by a renter. As the maximum penalty under that Clause is £100, we feel that hon. Member was right in suggesting

that figure as the appropriate penalty in this case.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: As the hon. and learned Member said, this Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking which he gave in Committee in response to an Amendment which I proposed. I accept gladly that it adequately gives the measure of protection that I wanted. I am bound to say that the hon. and learned Member has gone a little further than I thought he was going to go in view of the very heavy doubts which he expressed about the penalty. He has forestalled me on this occasion, for I cannot twit him with having changed his mind. He has admitted that fact and I have no quarrel on that account.
6.30 p.m.
It is, however, right that I should draw attention to one aspect to which my attention has been drawn in the intervening period and which I think should be taken into account. I confess that I had not apprehended that it would be myself who would do so, but it has been suggested to me that this may bear a little harshly in what, I understand, is a fairly frequent occurrence in the change of playing time and film changes, of perhaps a quite minor character, which are of necessity made very shortly after the initial registration. It has been suggested to me that the necessity of applying the procedure proposed in the Amendment to such minor changes of playing time so soon after first registration would involve a rather unnecessary degree of work, and that to ignore such minor changes at that early stage would not weaken the protection which is otherwise provided by the Amendment.
The suggestion which has been made to me is that some little proviso might be made to the Amendment whereby these could be ignored in the application of the protective measures now proposed. I pass the suggestion on because I think it is fair to draw attention to that, particularly in view of the fact that the Renters' Society, I understand, is quite happy about the protective measures proposed but does apprehend a little difficulty and irksomeness in their rigid application to the type of adjustments to which I have referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(SUBSTITUTION OF PLAYING TIME FOR LENGTH.)

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, to leave out "commencement of this Act" and to insert:
coming into operation of this section".
This Amendment has the effect that the length of films registered before 1st October, 1960, instead of before
the commencement of this Act
shall be determined by treating every 90 feet of length as equivalent to a playing time of one minute. The Amendment is consequential on the revised Clause 18 (5) which alters the dates on which various parts of the Bill will come into force. Clause 16 (1), which substitutes playing time for the length in feet as the statutory measure of a film's length, is now to take effect from 1st October, 1960, instead of, as originally drafted, from
the commencement of this Act.
It is, therefore, necessary that the method of calculating the length of films registered before the change shall apply to all films registered before 1st October, 1960. With that explanation the House will, I hope, accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(INTERPRETATION, CONSTRUCTION, SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, at the end to insert:
but nothing in this Act shall affect the operation, in relation to films registered before the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one, of subsection (2) of section eight of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957 (which applies section twenty-five of the Act of 1938 for the purpose of determining whether a film is a British film)".
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that films registered as British before 1st January, 1961, and which up to that time will be eligible for a share of the film levy, should continue to be so eligible. As a result of Clauses 6 to 9 and certain other provisions in the Bill which are to come into force on 1st January, 1961, the condition laid down in Section 25 of the 1938 Act with which the film must comply before it can be registered as a British film will be altered. Also, by virtue of Clause 18, subsections (2) and (3), of this Bill, all

references to Section 25 will in future be construed as references to it as then amended by this Bill.
For the purpose of Section 3 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, which is concerned with the distribution to makers of British films by the British Film Fund Agency of the proceeds of the levy on exhibitors, Section 8 of that Act defines a British film by reference to Section 25 of the 1938 Act. So the House will immediately see that unless a saving provision is written into the Bill the only films which will qualify as British for the purpose of the levy after 1st January, 1961, will be those which comply with the test laid down by Section 25 as amended. That might mean that certain films which are at present drawing levy would be unable to continue to do so, and, as I said, the Amendment saves those films registered as British before 1st January, 1961, which passed the old tests laid down for a British film but not the new.

Mrs. White: All I wish to say is that if ever an example was needed for consolidating legislation, I think we have it before us in this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
(5) This Act shall come into force on the first Sunday falling after the expiration of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; except that—

(a) sections twelve to sixteen, the First Schedule, and Part I and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Second Schedule shall come into force on the first day of October nineteen hundred and sixty; and
(b) sections six to nine and eleven, paragraphs 8, 14 and 15 of the Second Schedule, and so much of the Third Schedule as relates to section forty-four of the Act of 1938, shall come into force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.

This Amendment proposes that certain parts of the Bill, including Clauses 12, 13 and 16, and Part I and paragraph 10 of the Second Schedule, should come into operation on 1st October, 1960. This is consequential on the substitution of playing time for length in Clause 16. It has proved necessary because the earliest possible period for which the Board of Trade can prescribe by regulation and supply to exhibitors new quota return books making reference to playing time


is the quota period beginning on 1st October, 1960. To avoid a multiplicity of regulations it has been decided to bring other parts of the Bill into force from 1st October, 1960, namely, Clause 14, dealing with quarterly exhibitors' licences, and Clause 15 dealing with fees, together with the First Schedule and paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule which are consequential.
Following representations from trade interests it has also been decided that it would be right and convenient that Clauses 9 and 11 dealing with the credit titles and the use of old material, as well as paragraphs 8 and 14 of the Second Schedule, should come into force on 1st January, 1961, along with the other Clauses which affect the eligibility of films for British quota registration and of which producers require long notice. In addition, it is proposed that paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule, which makes a minor change in the definition of a trade show and which can conveniently be dealt with by regulation effective from 1st January, 1961, should also come into force on that date.
Three main groups emerge from this Amendment: firstly, the provisions affecting newsreels, co-productions and the relief and exemption arrangements as well as a number of minor points all of which can conveniently be put into operation as soon as possible; secondly, a group of provisions primarily affecting exhibitors which will entail new regulations and which will be introduced at the beginning of the next quota year, namely, 1st October, 1960; and finally, the provisions affecting the eligibility of films for British quota registration, of which, in fairness to producers, long notice must be given. These will come into force on 1st January, 1961.
I hope that this will commend itself to the House as a sensible arrangement which will be for the convenience of the trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSE-QUENTIAL AMENDMENTS)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 24, at the end to insert:
16. Subsection (8) of section forty-four (which extends the meaning of the expression "His Majesty's dominions" so as to include British protectorates) shall have effect, and be

deemed always to have had effect, as if after the word "protectorate" there were inserted the words "or protected State".
This is a clarifying Amendment to pave the way to consolidation.
It is not clear whether the expression "protectorate" in Section 44 (8) of the 1938 Act, which lays down that any reference to "His Majesty's dominions" should be construed as including a reference to any British protectorates can be legitimately construed as also embracing those States which are more properly described as "protected States".
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) will know well that the line of demarcation between protected States and protectorates is very difficult to ascertain in law, but there is quite plainly a difference in status. It is to make sure that there is no doubt that the use of the word "protectorate" in the 1938 Act includes protected States as well that I move the Amendment.

Mrs. White: I do not think that we should have any objection to the Amendment, but I confess that I am a little puzzled. The Solicitor-General did not give us any sort of illustration of what he has in mind. It is true that we are not meant to be discussing constitutional law with this Bill, nevertheless I should like to know whether I am right in supposing, for example, that if, as many of us at least on this side of the House hope, Nyasaland reaches a point of self-government in the relatively near future, the kind of situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind would apply, in view of the fact that a protected State would then be a self-governing State. Otherwise, I am not quite sure why we have to change "protectorate" to "protected State".
If we are making this alteration and it has any significance, we ought to have a little more information about what exactly is intended, because normally we use the words "British Protectorate". I find it hard at the moment to think of any territory within Her Majesty's Dominions which could be called a protected State. Perhaps we could have the point made a little clearer. We might be told whether we are meant to look forward or whether there are already some territories which might be called protected States and which would otherwise not be included in our legislation.


We ought not to accept the Amendment without having made more clear to us what we are asked to do.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I ought to have given examples to make the point more clearly. I can give an example of a Protectorate. First of all, Bechuanaland is a Protectorate. On the other hand, parts of the former Federated Malayan States in 1938, which is the date of the Act we are amending, were protected States. Others, like Penang and Malacca, were clearly covered by the expression "His Majesty's dominions". But without having to look back to 1938 I can give examples of what are clearly protected States even today. Tonga is one and Brunei is another. One can broadly say that they were those States which were represented by Sovereigns at the Coronation.

Mrs. White: That would bring in Buganda. Is Buganda a protected State in that sense?

The Solicitor-General: I will stick to the ones which are quite certain, namely, Brunei and Tonga. The hon. Lady may have misunderstood me earlier. We are not saying that "protectorate" shall include "protected States." What we are saying is that "Her Majesty's dominions" shall include not only Protectorates but protected States for the purpose of the Clause and consolidation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 48, at end insert:

The Cinematograph Films Act, 1957

20. In subsection (2) of section eight the words "to which the said Act of 1938 applies" shall be omitted, and for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the said Act of 1938"—[The Solicitor-General.]

Third Schedule—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert:
In section eight, in subsection (2), the words to which the said Act of 1938 applies.'"—[The Solicitor-General]

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As one would expect of a Bill which is of a somewhat technical nature, we would all agree, and particularly those of us who were in Committee, that it has been substantially improved during the Committee stage. I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their help and in particular the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for her co-operation.
We have all been genuinely anxious to improve the operation of the film quota which has served the film industry well for over thirty years, and I think that we have achieved this, even if the Bill may not suit every shade of opinion in the film industry. This, indeed, would be a difficult objective to achieve.
The Bill is primarily a producers' Bill, but a good deal of attention has been paid in Committee to the needs of the exhibitor and to improving the arrangements for exemption and relief where the quota obligations would bear too harshly. We have sought to strengthen the truly British character of our films without outting ourselves off from foreign artistic and creative talent. An operation of this sort, I am sure all hon. Members would agree, is essentially a compromise measure.
The question where to draw the line has not been easy to determine but, during the previous two stages of the Bill, we have redrawn it in a way which gives a little more scope for the use of foreign talent. I think that on balance this was wise. We have also extended the scope of the quota to newsreels and to co-produced films, the latter giving further opportunity for useful exchanges with foreign talent, which we hope will be of benefit to all sides of the industry. I should like to repeat the undertaking which I gave in Committee that the Board of Trade will keep in touch with the industry and, of course, the Cinematograph Films Council in drawing up agreements with other Governments under which co-production films can be made.
A number of references have been made during the passage of the Bill to the desirability of consolidating the quota legislation and I gave an assurance that this would be done. However, I find that the terms of my assurance perhaps went a little further than I intended. I said that all the Film Acts


would be in one Statute. I should like to take the opportunity of explaining that the consolidation Measure will extend only to the quota legislation and not, of course, to the Acts affecting the operation of the National Film Finance Corporation or the exhibitors' levy.
Some concern was expressed in Committee at the possible threat to United Kingdom studios of production being diverted to studios outside the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East suggested that if Section 25 (1) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, were to be amended to disqualify for quota purposes films made in studios outside the United Kingdom, the legitimate requirements of British producers for the use of studios overseas might be met by amending Section 25 (3) in such a way that Commonwealth studios could be used to some extent but within narrower limits than at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General promised that this suggestion would be carefully considered and this has been done.
We have come to the conclusion that any reasonable extension of the percentage of film which might be disregarded under Section 25 (3) would still leave the United Kingdom producers significantly hampered when making films in distant parts of the Commonwealth. It would also have the considerable effect of increasing by a marked extent the possibility of using foreign labour instead of British labour, because subsection (3) provides for treating part of a film as though it did not form part of the film in determining whether labour cost conditions are fulfilled.
Moreover, we remain unconvinced that there is a real likelihood of a great expansion of production at Ardmore Studios in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. The technical and commercial reasons for using the highly efficient studios in this country are, we believe, very great. It is clear that there is anxiety on this subject even though the payment of levy is already limited to films made by bona fide United Kingdom makers, and if there were to be a dramatic increase in production I would certainly consider asking the Cinematograph Films Council to advise on whether the distribution of levy regulations ought to be amended, so that films

made in studios outside the United Kingdom should not be eligible for levy. However, I do not think that this time has yet come. Meanwhile, I am satisfied that it would be a mistake to amend our present Bill in a fashion which would prevent any Commonwealth film being registered as British, and might hamper genuine British production in Commonwealth studios for the sake of a risk which has not yet developed.
I also undertook to review the penalties in the Bill. This has been done with great care in conjunction with the Home Office. After examination of the number of prosecutions made for various offences during the last seven years and the fines which have been imposed, which have been well within the maximum penalties, and having regard to the maximum penalties prescribed in other legislation, the conclusion has been reached that there is no occasion to increase the penalties in the Cinematograph Films Acts.
I commend the Bill to the House in the belief that we have materially improved and strengthened this bulwark of British films in the shelter of which the industry has developed so well. Today, British films are more competitive in world markets than ever before, but the future is far too insecure to do without the quota protection. Therefore, I ask the House to pass this Measure, which will maintain for another seven years the security of their own home market for British films.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we have reached the end of our labours and I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman and to his colleague the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for their helpfulness and unfailing courtesy during the proceedings on the Bill.
We have diverged on and debated many points. On the Opposition side we have failed to get all that we wanted. Nevertheless, I thank the Government for coming to our view on one or two important matters. Of course, I join in the hope that the Bill will commend itself to the industry and that it will result in helping the industry to meet the many difficulties that face it. However, it would be wrong of us not to recognise the discontents that exist in the British


film industry today. Although the Bill aims at helping the producer and the exhibitor, we must realise that the exhibitor is faced with a difficult position and that the industry, as a whole, today is tending to become lopsided and very ill-balanced. At the moment there is one very contentious point. That is the question of the showing on television of films which are no longer being shown in the cinema.
This point is gravely disturbing the exhibitor, and we in this House must pay attention to it because for the year now ending the exhibitor will be found to have contributed around £4 million by way of the statutory levy towards helping the production of British films. Now he finds that when those films have served their purpose in the cinema they are being sold to commercial television, then to appear on the television screen inside the home and thus become a competitor to the film which is being shown in the cinema.
That practice must be examined. No one in this House would seek to prevent people in their homes seeing interesting films, but we must try to devise a method whereby those in the industry who have helped to produce films will not find that those very films will ultimately be used in a way that will harm the exhibiting trade. There are those who are suggesting that if an individual who has produced a film and has been helped by the production fund sells it, he should be compelled to refund the amount he obtained from that fund. However, Mr. Speaker, these are not matters which we can examine now, although we may mention them because they are part of the troubles which may help to prevent the Bill doing all we would want to see it do.
There is a second point. The hon. Gentleman stated that we wanted to see the film presenting abroad the British way of life. It may be that by and by we shall come to a new view of whether or not that is a sound directive. I say this because I do not know whether the British, or any other way of life, makes any particular appeal to any group of people. What we want to see in our film work is a common chord that can be struck in any cinema in any part of the world.
There is a strange commentary on this portrayal of the British way of life because it is part of what I had in mind at the beginning of my speech, that the industry is becoming ill-balanced. This is because the better paying aspect of the productive side lies in the horror films, the "X" films, those which are being produced by Hammer Brothers, and which since 1945 have turned men who started with practically nothing into millionaires. Those are the films which are selling most easily and most profitably abroad, and those are the films which apparently portray the British way of life.
It is not a properly organised industry that can create at one end men who are making lots of money, and, at the other end, men who are contributing towards the production fund which makes that possible, who are themselves desperate to make ends meet, and who are in many cases closing down their cinemas right and left. I do not think that is an unfair picture of the state to which the industry has come and I am certain that it is the wish of all Members to try to bring into this great industry a better economic balance than presently exists.
We shall probably have another chance to develop these matters in a little more detail later on this year, but in the meantime my duty is the simple one of hoping—as I do with some assurance—that the Opposition at least played its part in improving the Bill. Once again I thank the Government for their cooperation.

7.1 p.m.

Mrs. White: I do not propose to detain the House for very long because we have already gone into the details of the Bill. It is primarily a technical Measure, which does not raise matters of major policy except in one or two directions. One of its objects was to bring us up to date, and we have done that with the provisions which now substitute playing time for footage, and which recognise that we now have methods of recording both sight and sound which are different from those which have obtained in the past, and may look forward to even more revolutionary ones in future. I have here a cutting from the Observer of last Sunday, which reports that there is now something called "thermo-plastic recording," invented in


America. It is a kind of hybrid composed of a photograph, film, magnetic tape and gramophone record. It is just as well that we have taken steps in this legislation to allow for any kind of future change of method. That is a minor but quite important advantage of the Bill.
I wish to refer to two major provisions, one of which we warmly approve and the other about which we are not at all enthusiastic. The one to which we object is that which includes newsreels. We do so not so much on grounds of quota. which is not so important, as for the levy purposes which are consequential. Although we cannot discuss the levy in much detail in these proceedings, the fact that it is directly consequential to this change is of some importance, and I would again stress the fact that we must take on trust the regulations which will be forthcoming in the future.
We were to some degree reassured by the affirmation from the Government that newsreels will have only the simple levy, and that there will be no multiplication as in the case of short films. I was asked to raise this point on Third Reading by some short-film makers who are concerned about this matter. I think that we are right to accept the assurance that there will be no additional multiplier for the newsreels when the regulations are brought forward.
Another understanding upon which newsreels were included was that when they come into quota, as they will now do, in settling the level of quota for short films account will be taken of the inclusion of newsreels. I believe that there is some doubt on this matter, but I would like to put it to the Government that when the Committee accepted newsreels into quota it did so on the understanding that they would be taken into account when the level of quota for short films was considered for the forthcoming quota period.
We welcome some of the other provisions, particularly in regard to co-production. We are very glad that the provisions of Clause 10 will make it much easier for co-operation with foreign film makers. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has rightly said, we have an opportunity of becoming one of the centres of international film production. We very much hope that this opportunity will be seized

by the British interests concerned. We have every reason to think that it will, but we are a little disturbed that the Government have not made it clear enough that there will be consultation before agreements are entered into with foreign Governments or authorities.
I hope that this will be done. We had some discussion about it in Committee. While we welcome the idea of co-production we are anxious that when we reach agreements they shall provide for a fair deal for our producers and employees. There is no doubt that unless great care is taken we may be taken for a ride in some of these agreements. The experience of some producers in Western European countries has shown that we must be very careful to make sure that we receive genuine reciprocity in any agreement that we make.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the question of Commonwealth studios. He will appreciate that we were concerned not so much with studios in the Commonwealth proper as with those in the Republic of Ireland, which is not in the Commonwealth. We must keep a very careful watch on Ardmore, which is the only studio with which we are much concerned as a direct competitor with the studios in the London area. We made it quite clear that studios in Australia are not directly in competition with the studios in London. If one goes to Australia one does so for a very good reason, concerned with the production of the film, whereas the studios in Ireland are much more directly competitive. We feel that care must be taken to see that production is not diverted there, to the real and lasting damage of the studios in this country, which, if once taken out of film production, will not be available should they be needed later on.
There is another matter which was raised earlier upon which we did not put down Amendments on Report but which, nevertheless, causes us some concern. I would ask the Government to reconsider the question of labour cost Clauses, in case something further can be done in another place. When we raised this matter earlier, by way of Amendment, I had to admit that the figures which we had then obtained from the trade might be somewhat misleading. We were told, in respect of short films about which we were specially worried,


that if we raised the labour cost qualification from the £50 in the Bill to the £100 we suggested—in order to take account of the change in the value of money—we would thereby cut out about three-fifths of the British short films.
We have had a rejoinder from the makers of short films—too late for inclusion as an Amendment—that this figure could have been reached only by including magazine programmes and other programmes in series which are not usually what are meant by short films, and that it was only by putting in these peculiarly low-cost short films that the figure suggested to us could have been reached. I therefore suggest that the Government should look at the matter again. The short film makers tell us that they still feel that there is inadequate protection of quality for short films—other than of the magazine type or serial type programmes—by leaving the figure at the present £50 per minute of playing time. We naturally wish to ensure that quality is preserved as far as it properly can, and it is only right that we should draw attention to this matter.
I want to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan in mentioning some of the matters which are concerning the industry, especially the question of films originally intended for the cinema being shown on television. The point at issue is that by provisions made in this House they enjoy the levy which is collected from cinema exhibitors. I give warning to the Government that the industry takes very seriously this question of a statutory levy now going to the competitors of the exhibitors from whom it is collected. The question cannot be ignored.
I was asked whether there was any method of putting down on Report an Amendment which would bring this matter more specifically to the attention of the House, but I could find no way within the rules whereby this could be done. Had we been able to do it we should have done it. I do not know whether any of our colleagues in another place will be more ingenious than we were. I would stress that this is a matter of extreme interest to the film industry at the moment, and that if we

can do anything to help that industry we should. Although there has been a very sharp decline in the attendance at cinemas I would remind the House that more than 12 million people in Great Britain still go to the cinema each week. It is therefore quite wrong to treat the industry as though it were no longer of any account.
Furthermore, we have all been very much encouraged by some of the very good British films which have been produced in the last year or two. There is no doubt that there has been a considerable improvement in quality in many directions. It is true that there are some films, such as the horror films mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan, about which we would all be very much concerned if they bore the name of our country, as is now provided in the Bill. Apart from those films, however, of which most of us would be ashamed, a number of very good films have been made—films which have been good not merely in themselves but in terms of success at the box office, as recent trade reports have shown. We can take a good deal of encouragement from that fact. If, by the Bill, we have managed to do something to help the cinema industry on the more technical side, we shall be very happy.
I hate to end on a note of disappointment, but I was disappointed to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that the consolidation Bill which is to come before us will not be all-inclusive. I have hardly had time to consider the import of his remarks, but I should be very much surprised if the 1957 Act were not included, because in this very Bill there is a good deal of cross-referencing to that, as well as to the Acts of 1948 and 1938. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak very strongly to his legal friends in this matter, and also to the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for consolidation. We hope that as much as possible of the cinema legislation will be brought into one Bill, so that we shall not have the difficulties of cross-referencing which have dogged our discussions in the Measure now before us.
If we can be told later on that the consolidation Bill will be as nearly all-inclusive as possible we shall be very happy. For the rest, we are glad that,


on balance, the Bill now before us may be of some assistance to the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MARYLEBONE STATION (FUTURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

7.15 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): The Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary, as the House well knows, are very much preoccupied with roads and dealing with the congestion of traffic, not only in the City of London, but in the other great cities in the United Kingdom. It may, therefore, seem a little unkind that I should take the opportunity on the Adjournment to raise the subject of the future of Marylebone railway station, a matter for the British Transport Commission and the railways to determine.
However, I point out that this 44-acre site is on the edge of the Pink Zone and proper regard for its future development could play not only an indirect, but perhaps a direct and very important part in trying to help solve the problem of traffic congestion in Central London, particularly some of the traffic problems which plague my constituency of St. Marylebone.
Last year, there was considerable correspondence in the national Press drawing attention to the fact that the railways were short of capital, but had considerable frozen assets in land which was being inadequately used. Among the editorials, letters and articles of one kind and another were suggestions that in certain respects a few take-over bids might not be out of place, so that some of those so-called wasted assets could be made profitable instead of unprofitable.
Arising from that correspondence and publicity, I had considerable representation made to me by my constituents who said that here, right in our midst, indeed, right on the doorstep of the Commission's own head office, the former Great Central Hotel, was a supreme example of the wasted asset, an inadequately used asset, which could be put to far better use.
Particularly during the General Election, when I was touring the streets of my constituency and making numerous short speeches, people raised this matter with me. Indeed, they were very rude about it, asking what I proposed to do about it, what the Government proposed to do about it, and what the Commission proposed to do about this site. At the General Election, I undertook that if I was returned I would communicate with the Commission and take an early opportunity to raise the matter which my constituents had brought before me. I am grateful for now having that opportunity.
My constituents are complaining about the inadequate use of Marylebone Station, one of the great main line termini of London. I have received, not from the Commission but from my constituents, a lot of information which I believe to be reasonably accurate and which I will now give to the House. How many express trains leave Marylebone Station and to what extent does that London terminus provide a suitable and adequate service for long-distance passengers?
Until recently, there were about eight long-distance express trains from that station, going to Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester. There were an extra two main-line trains during the electrification at King's Cross and Euston, but only in the last few days the number of main-line trains has been reduced to four. I understand that there are only seven coaches on each of those trains, two of them kitchen and dining cars, and that the total accommodation provided is only about 300 seats, of which only about one-third are used.
The reason for this lack of use of these main-line trains is not hard to see. At King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston, quite close by, and at Paddington, as well, there are many trains, some 80 or more every day, to the same places as those four main-line trains go. What is more, the journey is done by those trains in half an hour or an hour less. Again, the underground railway connections at King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston are very much better than those at Marylebone. The result is that the public naturally uses those places where there is the greatest convenience for


them. It therefore seems that if Marylebone Station were shut down for the use of long-distance passenger express trains, there would be no inconvenience to the public.
I now turn to the goods and parcels traffic. How much goods and parcels traffic goes from that terminus? I understand that there are about nine trains daily. I am told that two of those are night parcels trains which are handled on the Marylebone passenger platforms but which could be handled on the suburban tracks if those tracks were left, or equally well, as I shall show, elsewhere.
The seven remaining goods trains are short, consisting of only about 20 wagons. Those could be operated at the Neasden yard and the goods dispersed by road. The distance of Marylebone from Neasden is only about five miles and an amount of those goods could well be distributed more conveniently from Neasden than from Marylebone. Alternatively, there is the Finchley Road goods yard which was formerly very much used by the coal traffic which, I am told, has now practically disappeared. By making a suitable crossing there, I understand that that would be very convenient for goods traffic.
Either of those places could also be used for the summer car transportation service going north to Scotland. I can see no difficulty to prevent cars being put on trains from either of those places; and, if the suburban tracks were removed, parcels could also be dispersed from either of those alternative places.
If this main-line station were shut down, of course there would be redundancy. The men working there would no longer have a job and that might well cause anxiety. However, I hope that the Commission and the Parliamentary Secretary could give every assurance that there would be no need for anxiety by the people employed at Marylebone, because there is a continual wastage elsewhere and it should not be difficult to provide full employment for any skilled man who wished to remain in the railway service, at Paddington, Baker Street, Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross, or, indeed, Liverpool Street, which are all close by. It is not like shutting down a coal mine in some isolated village

where there is no alternative employment. Here there is any amount of suitable alternative employment. If some of the men now employed at Marylebone wished to change their jobs, I feel certain that they would have no difficulty in obtaining suitable employment somewhere in London.
I want now to deal with the suburban passenger traffic. Analysis shows that the volume of traffic at eight of London's principal main-line suburban stations, arriving between seven and ten in the morning, is nearly 300,000 passengers. Of that number, 5,000, or slightly fewer, arrive at Marylebone, about 1·75 per cent. of the total. Of a total of nearly 800 trains at the eight stations in that time, about 22 arrive at Marylebone, about 2·75 per cent. In the corresponding evening rush hours the percentage leaving Marylebone is less. There are about 1,000 fewer passengers and the proportion compared with the other stations is rather less than in the morning, about 1·6 per cent. Some of the other London Transport stations handle some 150,000 passengers a day, so that the number handled at Marylebone is infinitesimal. In the 14 off-peak hours, departures average only about two trains an hour and during those times the system seems almost to have ceased to function.
It is clear that the suburban user ought to be protected. We hope that if the Minister's plans for stopping the long-term parker in Central London are successful, there may well be a greater number of people wishing to come to Central London by suburban lines. Is there any alternative to shutting down this suburban line and making some other use of it? Frankly, I can say that there is.
The suburban line could be kept in operation on the surface and the 44-acre site would then be lessened by about one acre only. It would probably be better to put the suburban line underground and I understand that there is no difficulty about that. It would end at about the Bakerloo level with a deep-level exchange of passengers. Better still, it could be extended to Marble Arch, but that would be a very costly undertaking.
That gives a fairly full analysis of the use being made by the railways of Marylebone Station. It is quite clear


that the loss there runs into many thousands of £s a year and the situation is getting worse. My constituents feel very strongly that this loss of the taxpayers' money ought not to continue. This area is one of the finest in London. It is an ideal development site. The railroad is next-door at Baker Street and it is close to the Paddington main-line station and many other main-line stations further to the east.
Close by there has been big development. Lately, some of the big companies have erected offices. Only the other day I was present at the opening of one of those offices and I was told that the increase in convenience was un-believable. The office is within a few yards of the area about which I am speaking. Previously, this firm was in the West End and customers going to it had
great difficulty in finding a place to put their cars —and this firm does a great deal of buying for its chain stores all over the country—and there was also great inconvenience for the staff and for buyers. There is room for parking where it is now. The firm is away from the congestion of Central London and in that respect the situation is ideal.
This area is suitable for commercial development. It is a perfect site for housing development. It is close to Regent's Park and other amenities. New schools have been built nearby and other amenities have also been provided. It is close to the shopping areas of the west End of London and, more important, there is easy access to the North.
It would also be an ideal site for a multi-storey garage in which people corning from the North could park their cars instead of having to park them in the centre of London.
This is an ideal site for the kind of development which could bring in a large revenue to the taxpayer or to the British Transport Commission instead of incurring a loss which it does at present.
My constituents cannot understand why there has been delay in developing this area. What is the reason for what has been described as a public scandal? The answer lies in the present set-up of the British Transport Commission, and I blame hon. Members opposite for this. I blame the Socialists for nationalising the railways.
I remember an occasion about twenty years ago when I sat next to the late Lord Stamp, who was then the president of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. He was also a great Civil Service administrator. He told me that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company was too big an organisation for satisfactory administration. He thought that when the railway system was split up into four groups at the end of the First World War that was a mistake. It should have been split into five or six groups.
What did the Socialists do? They lumped those four groups together and brought in road transport as well under one administration. What idiocy. What crass stupidity it was to do that. It made it impossible to administer the newly-formed organisation efficiently.
One of the reasons why Marylebone Station has not been developed as it cold have been, and as it ought to have been, is that in the British Transport Commission we have an unwieldy organition which cannot deal with the many things with which it is supposed to deal. It is engaged on a tremendous programme of modernisation. It is also trying to shut down unprofitable branch lines. Sir Brian Robertson has an impossible task.
Over the last few months I have had considerable correspondence with Sir Brian Robertson about the disposal of railway properties which are either inadequately used or not used at all and which could be put to more profitable use. I should like to pay warm tribute to the way in which Sir Brian Robertson with great care and consideration has tried to answer the various points that I have made and to deal with the whole problem as best he can. In the correspondence he draws attention to the fact that about £10 million of capital has already been realised from properties which are no longer required by the commission, and that the Commission's revenue has been increased by £5 million a year net.
That is an infinitesimal amount when one thinks of the tremendous assets that the commission has in the centres of towns and villages all over the country which are used only slightly, or perhaps not at all, and which could be made into valuable revenue-earning properties.


It is wrong that Sir Brian Robertson should have had to deal with me in this way and that we should have had this long correspondence about the future of Marylebone station. It shows that the whole set-up is wrong. The Minister should now look at the set-up of the British Transport Commission because only in that way will the future of Marylebone station, and many other similar properties, be dealt with in the way that I think it should be dealt with.
The Commission ought to divest itself of its functional duties. It ought to be a holding company, and its chief job ought to be to appoint perhaps the chairman and directors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member is in some difficulty. On this Motion he is not entitled to ask for legislation. Perhaps he would bear that in mind.

Sir W. Wakefield: I realise that I am not entitled to put forward anything which would entail legislation, but I was trying to point out that some action could be taken. I was under the impression that some of the things that I was about to suggest could be done without legislation. Perhaps the holding company which I suggested would require legislation, but an effort should be made to decentralise the activities of the British Transport Commission and to bring private enterprise into partnership in the same way as there is at present an association between the Commission and Ribble Motors. If at some future date, shares were sold so that the public could have an equity, great progress would be made. If the Commission could be organised on more commercial lines than it is at present that would be a good thing.
How can one do that? It should be possible for the Commission ruthlessly to shut down all branch lines which are not profit-making. If it is necessary to maintain a service in a particular place or area it could be done by way of a subsidy. After all, we see on today's Order Paper that provision is made for helping the Highlands and Islands shipping services. The same procedure could be adopted after decentralising the activities of the British Transport Commission.
After forming separate companies, with the Commission as a holding company—and I hope that this might be done without legislation—the Commission should be split into groups with hotels, ships, and docks; and private enterprise should be brought into partnership for the development of those activities. We should then see a big change for the better in the whole set-up.
I should like to see road interests hived off, again in partnership with private enterprise. It might be a good thing to separate the London Transport Executive from the British Transport Commission, hiving off the underground activities and the surface activities into two separate organisations. I should have thought that the most important step of all, in order to achieve an adequate development of these frozen assets, would be for the Commission, in partnership with private enterprise, to form a number of property development companies. Why cannot the Commission form such companies for Marylebone, for the Midlands, for the North, and so on? Experts would be eager to develop such properties, and the operational side of British Railways would have to give good reasons why land which was not being used adequately should not be put to some more profitable use. It would be a great advantage if something of that sort could be done.
Shareholders can bring great pressure to bear on company directors. There is no doubt that shareholders attending an annual general meeting of a company can bring pressure to bear on the directors in a way which is much more effective than anything which we in this House can do. I call on the Government to act immediately, no only in connection with the future development of the site at Marylebone, but also in the other various ways which I have summarised. I beg the Minister and the Government to adopt a policy of decentralisation and to bring private enterprise into partnership in these various ways. Then we should see a great move forward which would be to the advantage of the community as a whole. Do not let us blame Sir Brian Robertson and his colleagues, who are doing their best to carry out a task which it is physically impossible for them to do.

7.42 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) for raising this subject and to congratulate him on choosing an evening when there is time for other hon. Members to take part in the debate. The proper use of an area of about 44 acres nearly in the centre of the Metropolis is not purely a constituency point, but a matter of great interest and of national moment.
Great interest has been taken in the M.1 motorway, but there is no point in having a motorway which may save half an hour in the time which it takes for a motorist to travel from Birmingham to London if it takes more than an additional half an hour to come from the outskirts to the centre of London. The more the motorway proves effective in bringing traffic quickly from the Midlands to London the more difficult it will become to get to the centre of the Metropolis.
I imagine that it is the intention of the Government eventually to construct motorways which come into the centre of London. That presents not only engineering problems and legal difficulties but also raises a social problem. My own constituency lies just to the north of that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone at a point between the area about which he spoke and where the M.1 motorway will come to an end when the present plans are completed.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that being situated in such a position is a matter of intense interest to my constituents. At the recent General Election we thought we were doing well to get 100 people to attend a public meeting, but there was no difficulty in attracting 500 people to a meeting to protest against plans which it is possible may be in the mind of my hon. Friend. This matter is one of immense interest, anxiety and importance in my constituency and other constituencies around London.
The question which everyone asks is, how are we to bring this traffic into London, what route will be used, what methods will be used to solve the various legal, social and engineering problems which arise? I suggest that we should use those parts of our railway system

which are moribund, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend. Lines exist which are inadequately used. There are some stations and goods yards which do not play a full part in our transport system. I imagine that there are a considerable number of lines coming into Marylebone Station from just outside London and it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a motorway in place of those lines.
Generally speaking, railway tracks are not satisfactory for conversion into roads because there are embankments and tunnels which are too narrow. But here we are dealing with something which will involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, and surely it must be possible to follow the course of railway lines where already geographical divisions exist. Such roads could be constructed in a way which would not harm existing communities.
If it is impossible to put a large double track motorway on the present railway tracks, surely it would be possible to build on the over-and-under principle, and I hope that suggestion is being considered by the Government. It may be that the Minister will reply that railway lines should be used more. I imagine that Government policy is to try to discourage additional motor traffic in the centre of London and to encourage a greater use of the railway. If that be so, I think there is some contradiction in such a policy. If one owns a motor car, and uses it to travel to London on business, the probability is that the petrol consumed is paid for by the business and is, therefore, tax-free. But if one travels on the railway, one has to pay for a ticket out of taxed income. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is a matter which the Ministry might take up seriously with the Treasury. At the moment, we are definitely putting our taxpayers in favour of doing the very things which everyone admits ought not to be done.
Apart from the question of the lines, there is in this great area an opportunity which ought to be seized. The great need of the traffic coming in from the outside of London to the centre is for some sort of terminal, a place where it can stop, can be spread out into the various other channels into which it has to go, or, maybe, can simply turn round


and go back again. We have in northwest London what I can only describe as an atrocious bus service.
We all get letters complaining about this, that and the other, but I get letters almost daily from my constituents complaining of the irregularity of the buses running in North-West London. The answer which is given to me, and it is a perfectly fair answer, is that it looks quite easy to run buses to the outer areas, but, if they are to be of any use at all, they have to come into the inner areas, and that is where we get the traffic congestion which is the cause of the irregularity.
I agree with that, and I think it is a perfectly fair thing to say about it, but, surely, the answer is not to try to run the buses right through the most densely trafficked areas, but to bring them to the edge, turn the buses round and send them back again. In that way, the buses coming from Cricklewood, Hendon, Finchley and so on would come into Marylebone, where they would turn round, and people would change into the forms of transport more convenient to them in order to reach the central area. It may be that in some cases they would not even need to change, because they would be within walking distance of some of the best shopping areas.
If serious consideration were given to the better use of this area as a turning ground, it could make a most valuable contribution to the solution of the traffic problem in the north of London. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will not be able to give final answers to all these questions this evening, but I put them to him, and I hope that he will give them very serious consideration.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylelone (Sir W. Wakefield) for raising this question about the future of Marylebone Station, and I entirely agree with him. I think it is appalling that there should be all this space of 44 acres, or even more, on a spot like this which is not fully used.
It is a difficult problem in one respect. My hon. Friend has mentioned that the main-line trains from Marylebone have been reduced—I think he said from eight to four—in recent weeks. I can endorse that, because I went there a fortnight ago to catch a train to Nottingham, and found that although the train had not been taken off it had been put back, made slower, and, what is worse, had no buffet car which earlier it had. Therefore, I went to St. Pancras, where I caught a much more comfortable train.
The problem of the suburban traffic is a little more difficult, and here I have a constituency interest, because one branch, or perhaps both branches, of the line which diverge on leaving Marylebone go through my constituency. One of them has two stations on it—Wembley Hill and Sudbury, while the other line has no station at all on it until it reaches Harrow. There is a certain amount of traffic coming through from High Wycombe and Beaconsfield, which, presumably, would have to be catered for in some other way.
There is another point, that Marylebone is still used on certain Saturday afternoons in the year, for instance, on Cup Final day and when there are other football matches. I am referring to a code of football different from the one which my hon. Friend at one time used to play, but which is seen at Wembley Stadium. On such days Marylebone is fairly busy. What I am wondering is whether the tracks can be maintained and, possibly, as my hon. Friend has suggested, might be taken underground and connected up with the Bakerloo Tube. I think that is something that might be considered. There is tremendous pressure during the rush hour on both the Bakerloo Tube and the Metropolitan Line which runs alongside the old Great Central line going northwards. I imagine that a relief tube line would be of great benefit to London Transport, at least in the peak hours. Presumably. it might help London Transport to carry the persons who will be displaced from Marylebone on the other line which joins the Great Western.
Apart from the railway aspect, I suggest that even if the station is not removed there is surely space upon


which could be built either multi-storey garages or flats, or probably both, or something of that nature, in order to make the railway station more economic if the station itself is not demolished. I think it is London's youngest railway terminal. If the railway history which I read in my youth is correct, 1897 was the year in which the Great Central Railway came into London to Marylebone.
There is one other point concerning the route of the line after leaving Marylebone. It goes into a tunnel under the nursery end of Lord's Cricket Ground, which I do not think anyone would wish to see destroyed or removed. It then goes on through a good residential district—St. John's Wood—which again nobody would want to see ruined. I think there is consolation in that respect, because the borough council is widening Wellington Road, I imagine with the idea of making it more suitable for taking traffic leading to M.1 and the Great North Road. I gather that there are also proposals for widening the Finchley Road further north. I think the tracks could be used for other purposes, and certainly a great area of the station ought to be able to be used for multi-storeyed garages or blocks of flats or something of that kind.
I hope that in the next few months there will be a tremendous drive towards solving the parking problem. From what we have heard of the activities of my right hon. Friend over Christmas, I think we can say that he is not only clearing the streets of parked cars and continuing the Pink Zone, but that he should provide multi-storeyed garages which will be complementary to parking meters. If he can do that, I suggest that he might start at Marylebone, which is a very little way outside the actual centre of London, where he might be able to prevent some of the traffic now coming into the centre from doing so. I hope that a great deal of notice will be taken of what my hon. Friend has said so that we may put this station to a very much better use.

7.59 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I am now getting quite used to having to stand at this Dispatch Box in an Adjournment debate and tell the

House, with regret, that the matter raised is one of day-to-day management for the British Transport Commission, and that, therefore, there is not a great deal that I can say. But although the subject of tonight's debate is partly a matter of day-to-day management for the Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has raised a number of wider issues that do not, I think, fall strictly within that definition, and I should like to deal with them.
I want first, however, to say something about the position of Marylebone Station itself—and about its future, which is the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I am informed by the Commission that it has plans for the continued use of this area of ground that it occupies and owns at Marylebone. Its usefulness falls into two parts: the goods yard, and the passenger station and its approaches.
I understand that the goods yard is not completely disused, although the Commission believes that it could be put to better use in future. Its wish is to redevelop the whole of the goods yard, principally to provide a main parcels concentration depôt. The project to do this is being worked out by the London Midland Region, which is responsible, but the present situation is that the scheme has not yet been submitted to the Commission itself for approval, nor has it been put into the Commission's programme of works. However, I understand that it is intended that the goods yard project should go forward as quickly as possible—

Sir W. Wakefield: Would it not be desiderable at this stage—because of the importance of this area for redevelopment for road use, parking, and so on —to consider the use of Neasden or Finchley, as I have suggested, for parcels and their distribution? Would not my hon. Friend make representations on that point to the Commission?

Mr. Hay: I think that my hon. Friend is asking me to do a little more than I dare do tonight. I would not like to make representations, but I shall certainly bring his views and observations to the notice of the Commission. It is not the job of the Minister of Transport, still less is it mine, to run the railways. That is the Commission's job, and any


question of the redevelopment of part of its undertaking, or the closing or expansion of any parts of it, is the responsibility of the Commission, placed on it by Parliament.
I should now like to say something about the passenger station. It is not the case that it is becoming disused, or that it will eventually be hardly used at all. A much fuller reconstruction is planned by the Commission for the passenger station although, in this case, the proposals have not yet gone so far ahead as have those for the goods yard. What is envisaged at this stage is that an office block for the Commission should be built there, and that there should also be accommodation for its electrical engineering staff. As I have said, this project is not very far advanced, though the Commission definitely has it in mind.
Next, a word about the traffic position at Marylebone. It is true to say that whereas this has been a very busy station in the past it is less busy at the moment, but the Commission does not envisage that it will continue to be a less busy station. In fact, it thinks that, if all goes well, the amount of traffic will increase considerably as the years go by.
As the House has already been told, Marylebone was originally the terminal for the Great Central Line, and the Great Central Line into Marylebone was originally developed in competition with the routes into Euston and St. Pancras. With the integration of the railway system, the need for this alternative, and slower. route for passenger services between London, the Midlands and the North Country has very largely disappeared. In any case, faced as it is with the need to streamline its services and to concentrate and improve those that it is best fitted to provide, the Commission could not afford to continue the uneconomic competition between all these lines.
Therefore, as part of its modernisation plan, the London Midland Region is planning to increase its main-line services from Euston and St. Pancras. Because of the work connected with the electrification of the Euston-Crewe-Liverpool line, it will not for some time be possible for the region to carry as much freight traffic as before and, as a consequence, some will be diverted on to the old Great Central Line into St. Marylebone.
Traffic on this line is restricted by the length of double track north of Harrow-on-the-Hill. As hon. Members know, it has to be shared with the Metropolitan Line, run by the London Transport Executive from Baker Street. The effect of this present restriction will be reduced when the quadrupling of the track as far as Moor Park has been completed, but it will still be necessary to restrict long-distance passenger services so as to allow for the increase in the daily commuter traffic and the freight traffic which, as I have already said, is being diverted from the Euston line.
Even when the electrification of the Euston line is completed and it is able to handle the additional freight, the Commission assures me that the Marylebone line will still be used to capacity. It will deal with freight traffic, and with the increased commuter traffic arising from the development around Aylesbury and Amersham—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) is present—and the steadily increasing parcels traffic of the whole region, for which, as I have already said, the goods yard at Marylebone is intended to be specially adapted.
As hon. Members have remarked, there are not many long-distance services from Marylebone at the moment. There are four services a day between Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham—the long-distance passenger services that formerly ran between Marylebone, Sheffield, Manchester and Bradford were withdrawn on 4th January last.
I hope that what I have said about the prospects both far the redevelopment of the land that at present appears unused and for the traffic at the passenger station, makes it clear that it is by no means a simple or easy thing to say that Marylebone Station as a whole has come to an end of its useful life, that it should be pulled down, and that the line should be used for other purposes. I hope that what I have said about the probabilities of passenger traffic for the future makes it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that we would have to look very carefully indeed at his suggestion for using the railway track for a motorway.


My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is full of bright ideas and would certainly examine the possibility of building motorways or other fast motor roads over railways, but this is obviously a very long-term matter. It is certainly not something that we could do overnight. It would need a good deal of examination. Every route would Present a dozen problems, such as tunnels and cuttings, and, of course, it would be a highly-expensive operation. However, I think that I can say that this is by no means completely ruled out, and we are continuing to examine it as care fully as we can.
A good deal of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone was concerned with the reorganisation of the Transport Commission. I do not think that anyone would deny that, as at present constituted, the Commission is going through a difficult period. Some of my hon. Friend's suggestions as to the hiving off of some of the Commission's activities, would, as your predecessor, in he Chair. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pointed out, require legislation, so I cannot comment on those suggestions tonight.
Similarly, we shall think very carefully of his suggestion that there might be a great deal of decentralisation of the Commission's activities, and I am grateful to him for making it. Nevertheless, to be fair, the Commission has represented to my right hon. Friend that there is very little scope left here, as there is already a fairly wide measure of decentralisation.
The major question with which my hon. Friend was concerned was the more profitable use of land owned by the Commission, and he instanced, of course, the land at Marylebone Station. He asked whether it would be possible for the Commission to develop more profitably land that it does not need for operational purposes. It is not easy, within the bounds of order, to go into that matter in all the detail I should like, but perhaps I may begin by telling the House what the statutory position is.
The foundation of the Commission's powers in Section 2 of the Transport Act, 1947. To that Section there is a proviso that the Commission shall not
… construct, manufacture or otherwise produce anything which is not required … for use for purposes of their under taking…

That prohibition means that the development of land on the normal commercial basis on which a private individual or private company would develop it, is restricted.
What the Commission is able to do under this Act is to sell any land that it does not need, to let to outside developers land that it does not need—in which case it can receive only the ground rent and not a rack rent—and to develop for its own operational purposes what land it has. What it cannot do is to develop land by building upon it, for example, offices or shops and then letting the buildings out at rack rents. This doctrine is not our fault; it is in the Act which was passed some years ago.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was passed by Parliament.

Mr. Hay: As the hon. Member says, it was passed by Parliament. So far does this doctrine go that I am informed that the Commission cannot even build and let shops on station concourses or on the approach roads to station buildings. It is prohibited from doing that by the Act.
Secondly, it cannot carry out what is sometimes called hybrid development, which means development partly for letting to some other organisation or firm and partly for retention for its own operational purposes. There is a general prohibition under the Act preventing the Commission from doing that. In certain specific individual cases, however, it has been done because it has been specially authorised by Parliament by the annual British Transport Commission Act. For example, I understand that proposals for the hybrid development of Euston Station are contained in the British Transport Commission Bill which will shortly come before the House.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will my hon. Friend clear up one point? Are the developments of the kind which he is mentioning matters of day-to-day management on which he is answering only as a matter of courtesy or are they matters on which the Minister must be consulted and on which we can, therefore, question him in the House?

Mr. Hay: That is a rather difficult question to answer, because one is never quite certain where the boundaries of this doctrine of day-to-day management


are drawn. For example, if the Transport Commission wishes to carry out a large redevelopment project for one of its stations, as is the case, strictly speaking it would be a matter of day-to-day management for it to decide what it wanted to do. But that is only part of the story. The Commission's capital investment, the money which it would need to carry out that redevelopment plan, has to be provided, under existing legislation, by the Exchequer. For that purpose—I hope that I am stating this correctly—the Commission would have to come to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport. I hope that my hon. Friend sees that there is a difficulty in drawing a hard-and-fast line.
That is the general statutory position, and I have no doubt that if the Transport Commission were, in general terms, given liberty to do these two things, which I have mentioned and which it is at present unable to do—the development of land and letting it at rack rents and the carrying out of hybrid develpments—it would be of benefit to the Commission in a number of ways. It would be of financial benefit. One can gauge the extent by saying that on its present powers, on straight lettings at ground rents, the Commission's income is £5 million a year. This has risen by £3 million a year since 1948. If I may say so with respect, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone made a slight error when he said earlier that the income had risen by £5 million. The current level of the Commission's income from the lettings of its properties is £5 million. It was £2 million in 1948 and it has risen by £3 million since then. If the Commission could develop on the hybrid basis which I mentioned, it estimates that it could increase its income from some of its sites by between twice and five times what it is getting form ground rent at the moment. That would obviously be a financial benefit.
Economically, too, there would be a benefit. It would certainly improve the Commission's capital position, because the book value of the land which it holds but does not need for its operational requirements would come more into line with the real value.
Thirdly, I think that there would be some planning advantages. If the commission were in a position to arrange its

own development, to let out that part which it wished to develop and to retain other parts for its operational purposes, it would be much easier to marry the two. The Commission itself thinks that if it had these general powers it would obtain planning permission from the local authorities much more easily than the a private developer would be able to do.
I want to say a little more to explain to the House how wide this matter goes. It is important to bear in mind that at the moment the Commission owns land for which it has no immediate operational requirements, valued in its books at £28 million. The most recent figure is given on page 55 of the Annual Accounts of the Transport Commission, which show that land and buildings not in operational use are valued at £28,335,767 as at 31st December, 1958. This is a pretty sizeable chunk of land which we are discussing.
As the modernisation plan proceeds and uneconomic branch lines, un economic stations and uneconomic marshalling yards are closed, so the amount of land which the Commission will have coming back to it, and for which it will have no immediate operational requirements, will rise. I mention this to show the extent and size of the problem.
Since 1948 the Commission has been disposing of a good deal of its land. It has sold land worth £10 million. Currently, sales are going on wherever it is possible to make them. Two recent examples will come to mind. The first is the projected sale of what is called the Bluebell line, in Sussex, where railway enthusiasts are so angry at the closure of their favourite line that they have been banding together to raise the money to buy the line and run it them-selves. The other more recent example is the sale of some of the railways in Norfolk to the local authorities to be turned into roads. These are examples of the way in which the Commission tries to get rid of surplus land by sale, but it makes it perfectly clear that it would feel much happier if it had the opportunity of developing the property on a commercial basis instead of selling it.
The exact position at the moment is that the Commission has asked my right hon. Friend whether he would be willing to introduce legislation to enable it to


have these two general powers. At the moment that is under consideration. I think that there is a lot to be said for the policy of giving greater freedom to the Commission to develop its land and to let it on a commercial basis, but we should not disguise the fact that there are certain arguments against it. I mention them not to say that I support them, but simply to show that my right hon. Friend has a difficult decision to make. I will mention only two of the big arguments which are sometimes put against it. The first is this: to what extent is it right that a nationalised industry should be permitted to compete in a field which is normally reserved for private enterprise?

Mr. William Ross: We have heard that before.

Mr. Hay: I said specifically that I do not support it. I am putting the argument and saying that these are some of the considerations which have to be taken into account.

Mr. Ross: It is a dogma.

Mr. Hay: It may be a dogma, but Presumably it was a dogma raised when the Transport Act was going through Parliament, otherwise what reason would there be for including the words in the Act which I read to the House, in these very clear and definite terms limiting the Commission in carrying out this type of activity? Presumably they were put there for a reason, and I can only think that at that time—we were not in office in those days—views were held that this was a thing which ought not to be allowed to the Commission. Whether the situation has changed in the intervening years is a matter for consideration and discussion. I mention it merely because it is one of the things which my right hon. Friend has to bear in mind.
The second argument against this is rather more serious in some ways. It is clear that if any policy of redevelopment of its surplus land were carried out by the Commission, a good deal more capital would be needed to do the job. As I have said, the position about capital is that the Commission goes to the Treasury for all its borrowings for capital purposes and since 1956, when this was instituted by the Finance Act, £326 million has already been advanced by the Treasury to meet the capital

borrowings of the Transport Commission.
This money has been earmarked principally for modernisation. Any Minister and any Government would have to think very carefully before being prepared to give the Commission by legislation carte blanche to go ahead and spend a great deal more capital in developing properties on something of a speculative basis, because it must inevitably be of a speculative character.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is desirable, where the Transport Commission has property which could be developed, that private interests, capable of developing that property and with money available, should be allowed to do it in partnership with the Commission? If that could be done, it might well be a fruitful partnership between the taxpayers' money and private interests which might be of great advantage to the community as a whole.

Mr. Hay: I do not necessarily dissent from that, but I should like to have the opportunity of looking at the legal position. It might well be that the Transport Act, 1947, prohibits something of that kind being done; on the other hand, it might not. I would hesitate before giving a categorical reply to my hon. Friend and saying "Yes, by all means it should be done", or, "No, it cannot be done".
In the time available to me—I am in a happier position tonight than on some previous occasions—I have tried to cover the ground which my hon. Friends have already covered in their speeches. I can only tell the House, in conclusion, that my right hon. Friend is giving the utmost thought to whether it is possible to introduce legislation to assist the Commission in the way it has asked. I cannot announce a decision tonight or forecast when that decision will be taken, but I can say that there is every indication that there is still a need for Marylebone Station. My right hon. Friend will certainly consider the observations made by hon. Members, and I hope that they, in turn, will realise that it is not so simple a matter as they might have thought.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.